Public and Parliamentary Speeches: Volumes XXVIII-XXIX 9781442680821

Table of contents :
Contents
Introduction
Textual Introduction
November 1850 to July 1865
February to August 1866
February to August 1867
February to November 1868
July 1869 to March 1873
Appendices
Index

Citation preview

COLLECTED WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL VOLUME XXVIII

The Collected Edition of the Works of John Stuart Mill has been planned and is being directed by an editorial committee appointed from the Faculty of Arts and Science of the University of Toronto, and from the University of Toronto Press. The primary aim of the edition is to present fully collated texts of those works which exist in a number of versions, both printed and manuscript, and to provide accurate texts of works previously unpublished or which have become relatively inaccessible.

Editorial Committee JOHN M. ROBSON, General Editor HARALD BOHNE, J.C. CAIRNS, J . B . CONACHER, D.P. DRYER, MARION FILIPIUK, FRANCESS HALPENNY, SAMUEL HOLLANDER, R.F. MCRAE, IAN MONTAGNES, F.E.L. PRIESTLEY, ANN P. ROBSON, F.E. SPARSHOTT

Public and Parliamentary Speeches by JOHN STUART MILL

November 1850 - November 1868 Edited by JOHN M. ROBSON University Professor and Professor of English, Victoria College, University of Toronto

and

BRUCE L. KINZER Associate Professor of History University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Introduction by BRUCE L. KINZER Textual Introduction by JOHN M. ROBSON UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS ROUTLEDGE

www.utppublishing.com © University of Toronto Press 1988 Toronto and Buffalo Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-2693-1 London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-03791-3 ISBN 0-415-03793-X (set)

Printed on acid-free paper

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication data Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873. [Works] Collected works of John Stuart Mill Includes bibliographies and indexes. PARTIAL CONTENTS: v. 28-29. Public & parliamentary speeches / edited by John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer. ISBN 0-8020-2693-1 (v. 28-29). 1. - Collected works. 2. - Collected works. I. Robson, John M., 1927II. Title. B1602.A2 1963 192 C65-188-2 rev.

This volume has been published with the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Contents

INTRODUCTION, by Bruce L. Kinzer

xiii

TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION, by John M. Robson

lxiii

November 1850 to July 1865 1. Secular Education (after 4 Nov., 1850?) 2. Cooperation (28 Mar., 1864) 3. Corruption at Elections (4 Apr., 1864) 4. Hare's Plan for the Metropolis (10 Apr. ,1864) 5. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 1 ] (3 July, 1865) 6. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 2 ] (5 July, 1865) 7. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 3 ] (6 July ,1865) 8. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 4 ] (8 July ,1865) 9. The Westminster Election of 1865 [5 ](10 July, 1865) 10. The Westminster Election of 1865 [6] (10 July, 1865) 11. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 7 ] (12 July, 1865)

3 5 9 11 13 18 28 31 40 42 43

February to August 1866 12. The Cattle Diseases Bill [ 1 ] (14 Feb., 1866) 13. The Cattle Diseases Bill [ 2 ] (16 Feb., 1866) 14. Suspension of Habeas Corpus in Ireland (17 Feb., 1866) 15. Representation of the People [ 1 ] (12 Apr., 1866) 16. Representation of the People [ 2 ] (13 Apr., 1866) 17. Representation of the People [ 3 ] (16 Apr., 1866) 18. The Malt Duty (17 Apr.,1866) 19. Inclosure of Hainault Forest (25 Apr., 1866) 20. Representation of the People [ 4 ] (26 Apr., 1866) 21. Chichester Fortescue's Land Bill (17 May, 1866) 22. Representation of the People [ 5 ] (31 May, 1866) 23. The Ministerial Crisis (23 June, 1866) 24. The Jamaica Committee (9 July, 1866)

47 50 52 54 58 69 69 74 74 75 83 86 90

vi

Contents 25. Electoral Franchise for Women (17 July, 1866) 26. The Disturbances in Jamaica [ 1 ] (19 July, 1866) 27. The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [ 1 ] (19 July, 1866) 28. W.E. Gladstone [ 1 ] (21 July, 1866) 29. The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [ 2 ] (24 July, 1866) 30. The Value of Land (25 July, 1866) 31. The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [ 3 ] (26 July, 1866) 32. The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [4] (30 July, 1866) 33. The Disturbances in Jamaica [2] (31 July, 1866) 34. The Reform Meeting in Hyde Park [ 5 ] (2 Aug., 1866) 35. Public Health (2 Aug., 1866) 36. The Extradition Treaties Act [ 1 ] (3 Aug., 1866) 37. The Extradition Treaties Act [ 2 ] (4 Aug., 1866) 38. The Naval Dockyards (4 Aug.,1866) 39. The Extradition Treaties Act [ 3 ] (6 Aug., 1866) 40. The Disturbances in Jamaica [3] (10 Aug., 1866) 41. The Lord Chief Baron (10 Aug., 1866)

91 93 96 96 98 100 101 102 105 114 114 115 119 119 120 123 124

February to August 1867 42. Political Progress (4 Feb., 1867) 43. Goldwin Smith (4 Feb., 1867) 44. The Royal Commission on Trades' Unions (15 Feb., 1867) 45. The Metropolitan Poor Bill [ 1 ] (8 Mar., 1867) 46. The Straits Settlements (8 Mar., 1867) 47. The Metropolitan Poor Bill [ 2 ] (8 Mar., 1867) 48. The Metropolitan Poor Bill [ 3 ] (11 Mar., 1867) 49. The Metropolitan Poor Bill [4] (14 Mar., 1867) 50. The Reform Bill [ 1 ] (8 Apr., 1867) 51. Trades Unions (10 Apr., 1867) 52. The Reform Bill [2] (11 Apr., 1867) 53. The Reform Bill [3] (9 May, 1867) 54. The Reform Bill [4] (17 May, 1867) 55. The Admission of Women to the Electoral Franchise (20 May, 1867) 56. The Municipal Corporations Bill (21 May, 1867) 57. The Fenian Convicts (25 May, 1867) 58. Reform of Parliament (25 May, 1867) 59. The Reform Bill [5] (27 May, 1867) 60. Personal Representation (30 May, 1867) 61. The Bankruptcy Acts Repeal Bill (4 June, 1867) 62. Petition Concerning the Fenians (14 June, 1867)

127 130 133 134 135 136 139 141 143 144 145 146 150 151 162 165 167 175 176 187 188

Contents 63. The Sunday Lectures Bill (19 June, 1867) 64. The Libel Bill (25 June, 1867) 65. The Reform Bill [6] (27 June, 1867) 66. Redistribution (28 June, 1867) 67. William Lloyd Garrison (29 June, 1867) 68. Martial Law (2 July, 1867) 69. The Reform Bill [7] (4 July, 1867) 70. Tancred's Charity Bill (4 July, 1867) 71. The Reform Bill [8] (5 July, 1867) 72. The Case of Fulford and Wellstead (5 July, 1867) 73. The Reform Bill [9] (15 July, 1867) 74. Commodore Wiseman and the Turkish Navy [ 1 ] (16 July, 1867) 75. Commodore Wiseman and the Turkish Navy [2] (22 July, 1867) 76. Meetings in Royal Parks [ 1 ] (22 July, 1867) 77. Public Education (29 July, 1867) 78. The Courts-Martial in Jamaica (1 Aug., 1867) 79. Meeting in the Tea-Room of the House of Commons (2 Aug.,1867) 80. England's Danger through the Suppression of Her Maritime Power (5 Aug., 1867) 81. The Extradition Treaties Act [4] (6 Aug., 1867) 82. The Metropolitan Government Bill (7 Aug., 1867) 83. The Reform Bill [10] (8 Aug., 1867) 84. East India Revenue (12 Aug., 1867) 85. Meetings in Royal Parks [ 2 ] (13 Aug., 1867)

vii 190 193 194 197 201 203 205 206 207 212 213 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 227 230 231 233 236

February to November 1868 86. Proportional Representation and Redistribution (29 Feb., 1868) 87. The Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868) 88. The State of Ireland (12 Mar., 1868) 89. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [ 1 ] (26 Mar., 1868) 90. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [2] (2 Apr., 1868) 91. Procedure in the House: Amendments (21 Apr., 1868) 92. Capital Punishment (21 Apr., 1868) 93. The Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill [ 1 ] (5 May, 1868)

239 242 247 262 265 265 266 273

viii

Contents 94. The Established Church in Ireland (7 May, 1868) 95. Local Charges on Real Property (12 May, 1868) 96. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [3] (21 May, 1868) 97. Representation of the People (Scotland) [ 1 ] (28 May, 1868) 98. Representation of the People (Scotland) [2] (8 June, 1868) 99. Married Women's Property (10 June, 1868) 100. Registration of Publications (12 June, 1868) 101. Representation of the People (Ireland) (15 June, 1868) 102. The Government of India Bill [ 1 ] (15 June, 1868) 103. Lodger Registration (15 June, 1868) 104. Public Schools [ 1 ] (16 June, 1868) 105. The Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill [2] (17 June, 1868) 106. The Government of India Bill [ 2 ] (22 June, 1868) 107. Public Schools [2] (23 June, 1868) 108. The Sea-Fisheries (Ireland) Bill (24 June, 1868) 109. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill [4] (25 June, 1868) 110. The Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill [3] (30 June, 1868) 111. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [ 5 ] (6 July, 1868) 112. Public Schools [3] (7 July, 1868) 113. Supply—Post Office (7 July, 1868) 114. The Government of India Bill [ 3 ] (8 July, 1868) 115. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [6] (10 July, 1868) 116. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [7] (14 July, 1868) 117. The Fenian Prisoners [ 1 ] (16 July, 1868) 118. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [8] (17 July, 1868) 119. Poor Relief [ 1 ] (17 July, 1868) 120. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [9] (18 July, 1868) 121. Imprisonment for Costs on a Dismissed Charge [ 1 ] (21 July, 1868) 122. The Fenian Prisoners [ 2 ] (21 July, 1868) 123. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [10] (22 July, 1868)

276 277 279 281 282 283 287 287 288 289 289

290 296 297 299 299 300 301 304 304 305 306 307 310 311 312 313 314 315 316

Contents 124. The Westminster Election of 1868 [1] (22 July, 1868) 125. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [11] (23 July, 1868) 126. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [12] (24 July, 1868) 127. Smoking in Railway Carriages [ 1 ] (24 July, 1868) 128. The Westminster Election of 1868 [2] (24 July, 1868) 129. The Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market (25 July, 1868) 130. Smoking in Railway Carriages [2] (25 July, 1868) 131. Imprisonment for Costs on a Dismissed Charge [2] (27 July, 1868) 132. Poor Relief [2] (27 July, 1868) 133. The Westminster Election of 1868 [3] (2 Nov., 1868) 134. The Westminster Election of 1868 [4] (4 Nov., 1868) 135. The Westminster Election of 1868 [5] (6 Nov., 1868) 136. The Westminster Election of 1868 [6] (9 Nov., 1868) 137. Fawcett for Brighton (10 Nov., 1868) 138. The Westminster Election of 1868 [7 ] ( 1 1 Nov., 1868) 139. The Westminster Election of 1868 [ 8 ] (13 Nov., 1868) 140. W.E. Gladstone [2] (14 Nov., 1868) 141. The Westminster Election of 1868 [9] (16 Nov., 1868) 142. The Westminster Election of 1868 [ 10] (18 Nov., 1868)

ix 319 325 327 328 329 332 333 333 334 334 341 344 347 350 355 358 363 367 369

July 1869 to March 1873 143. The Cobden Club (10 July, 1869) 144. Women's Suffrage [ 1 ] (18 July 1869) 145. The Education Bill (25 Mar., 1870) 146. Women's Suffrage [2] (26 Mar., 1870) 147. The Elementary Education Bill (4 Apr., 1870) 148. Election to School Boards [ 1 ] (22 Oct., 1870) 149. Election to School Boards [2] (9 Nov., 1870) 150. Women's Suffrage [ 3 ] (12 Jan., 1871) 151. The Cumulative Vote (13 Feb., 1871) 152. Discussion of the Contagious Diseases Acts (23 Feb., 1871) 153. The Army Bill (10 Mar., 1871) 154. Land Tenure Reform [ 1 ] (15 May, 1871) 155. Land Tenure Reform [ 2 ] (18 Mar., 1873)

371 373 381 386 391 396 398 402 409 411 411 416 425

x

Contents

APPENDICES Appendix A.

The Manuscripts

435

Appendix B.

Questions before Committees of the House of Commons

I ) Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government (1866) II) Select Committee on Extradition (1868) Appendix C.

Petitions in the House of Commons (1866-68)

Appendix D.

Manuscript Drafts of Speeches

I) No. 6(1865) II) No. 16(1866) III) No. 144(1869) IV) No. 145(1870)

437 542 572

594 599 604 610

Appendix E. Missing Speeches

614

Appendix F. War and Peace, by Helen Taylor (1871)

615

Appendix G.

Textual Emendations

618

Appendix H.

Index of Persons and Works Cited

623

INDEX

681

FACSIMILES "Westminster Election: The Nomination in Covent-Garden" Illustrated London News, 22 July, 1865, p. 56 "Nomination of Candidates for Westminster at the Hustings, Charing Cross" Illustrated London News, 21 November, 1868, p. 485 "Miss Mill Joins the Ladies" Judy, 25 November, 1868, pp. 46-7 "Poor Ireland!" Fun, 28 March, 1868, facing p. 28

XXVIII, xi facing 370 XXIX, vii 432

'Westminster Election: The Nomination in Covent-Garden" Illustrated London News, 22 July, 1865, p. 56 Metropolitan Toronto Library

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction BRUCE L. KINZER WERE IT NOT for his Westminster years (1865-68), there would be very little to do in the way of editing or introducing John Stuart Mill's post-London Debating Society speeches. Mill had an impressive facility for putting thoughts into words, written or spoken, but he recognized that he could usually accomplish much more with his pen than with his tongue. He also understood that formal prose was the only medium capable of doing complete justice to the ideas and arguments he wished to convey to his audience. It can be assumed that Mill felt more comfortable at his desk than on the platform or in the House of Commons. The psychological security offered by his study, however, is not responsible for the marked preference he showed for the written word. Mill's sense of public duty was such that there would have been a great deal more labour for the editors of these volumes had he been persuaded that his goals could be better advanced through speeches than through essays. Mill delivered very few public speeches before 1865. Those that he did give were of modest length and ambition; they did not attract much notice at the time and they do not call for special analysis now. From his defeat at the 1868 general election until his death in 1873, Mill was certainly a much more active and prominent speech-maker than he had been prior to the 1865 Westminster campaign. The content and context of that activity constitute a distinctive phase in his life-long experience of political engagement. Even so, the intervening parliamentary career, which established Mill as a highly visible figure in the political world of mid-Victorian England, goes far towards explaining the disparity in quantity and dimensions between the pre-1865 and post-1868 public speeches. Of paramount concern are the origin, character, and significance of that career. THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND THE WESTMINSTER YEARS THE TEMPTATION EXISTS to dismiss J.S. Mill's three years in the House of Commons as a relatively insignificant episode in a life distinguished by extraordinarily influential writings on virtually every subject central to the

xiv

Introduction

intellectual discourse of his age. Whereas the Autobiography has induced a literature of impressive proportions on Mill's education, his mental crisis, and his association with Harriet Taylor, nothing like commensurate attention has been paid to the section of this peculiar work that discusses his years in the House of Commons. Such neglect is not the result of the brevity of the treatment he provides. The account of the 1865 to 1868 period of his life, an account that concentrates heavily on his experiences as a candidate and Member of Parliament, constitutes over a tenth of the entire Autobiography (eighteen printed pages are given to these four years-approximately two-thirds of the space allocated to the preceding quarter-century).1 It is not how much Mill says but what he says and how he says it that has made scholars generally indifferent to Mill's portrayal of his parliamentary career. Although a conception of purpose with regard to his political objectives imparts a focus and a measure of unity to the parliamentary paragraphs, their content lacks the personal dimension so singularly displayed in the early chapters. The cumulative effect of the self-satisfied detachment with which Mill describes his support of parliamentary reform and purity of election, women's suffrage and personal representation, justice for Ireland and no less for Jamaica, can produce mild irritation, unrelieved by anything twentieth-century readers are disposed to find absorbing or provocative. The formality and flatness of tone characteristic of Mill's consideration of these years cannot be attributed to temporal distance. Written less than two years after his defeat at the November 1868 general election, the exposition of the Westminster period drew upon eminently fresh recollections. The distance is rather psychological and rhetorical, serving an argumentative function that is not without paradox. The final portion of the Autobiography embraces an explanation and justification of his political conduct between 1865 and 1868. If the need to explain and justify is responsible for the disproportionate length of the account, that need itself is a consequence of his failure to secure re-election in 1868. Mill patiently builds up his case, making it abundantly clear, if only by implication, that while he lost nothing of substance at the 1868 general election, the electors of Westminster denied themselves the opportunity of being represented by one whose integrity, intellectual weight, and moral authority did honour to his constituents and his country. An intellectual and moralist in politics? So much can be taken for granted. But the real interest of his parliamentary career lies in its illumination of Mill as politician. The ultimate objectives invariably involved a commitment to the "improvement" or "regeneration" of mankind. His head might be in the air, but Mill always saw himself as a man whose feet were firmly planted on the ground. The successful moralist had to be an able tactician. Mill's labours, whether in or 1 Autobiography [A], in Autobiography and Literary Essays, ed. John M. Robson and Jack Stillinger, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill [CW], I (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 229-90.

Introduction

xv

out of the House of Commons, always assumed a form consistent with his understanding of the obligation to marry theory and practice. His grasp of political realities may have sometimes been deficient; his sense of politics as "the art of the possible" remained a constant. Whatever doubts Mill had respecting the advisability of his entering the House of Commons, they did not spring from an apprehension of personal unfitness. A passage in the Autobiography remote from the parliamentary section makes explicit Mill's supreme confidence in his capacities as a practical man of business. Evaluating the benefits he gained from his long service in the East India Company, Mill observes: as a Secretary conducting political correspondence, I could not issue an order or express an opinion, without satisfying various persons very unlike myself, that the thing was fit to be done. I was thus in a good position for finding out by practice the mode of putting a thought which gives it easiest admittance into minds not prepared for it by habit; while I became practically conversant with the difficulties of moving bodies of men, the necessities of compromise, the art of sacrificing the non-essential to preserve the essential. I learnt how to obtain the best I could, when I could not obtain everything; instead of being indignant or dispirited because I could not have entirely my own way, to be pleased and encouraged when I could have the smallest part of it; and when even that could not be, to bear with complete equanimity the being overruled altogether. I have found, through life, these acquisitions to be of the greatest possible importance for personal happiness, and they are also a very necessary condition for enabling any one, either as theorist or as practical man, to effect the greatest amount of good compatible with his opportunities.2

A disadvantage of his position at India House, however, was that it excluded him "from Parliament, and public life," an exclusion to which he "was not indifferent."3 Mill never questioned his ability to function effectively in the House of Commons. Although there are very good reasons for viewing the nineteenthcentury House as a unique institution with distinctive traditions, conventions, and assumptions that had to be learned and understood before a member could feel at home there, Mill in 1865 never considered the possibility that his full acceptance and recognition would require a period of apprenticeship. He not only entered the House as an established public figure; he also, as his remarks indicate, had a 2

Ibid.,S7. Ibid., 85. In 1842 Mill had written to Comte: "la question de participation au moins directe, au mouvement politique, se trouve pour moi à peu près décidée par ma position individuelle. Je remettrai à un autre temps 1'exposition de mes vues sur les circonstances politiques de mon pays, qui malgré la force incontestable de vos objections, font encore à mes yeux de la tribune parlementaire la meilleure chaire d'enseignement public pour un philosophe sociologiste convenablement placé, et qui chercherait peut être à faire des ministères ou à les diriger dans sons sens, mais en s'abstenant d'en faire partie, sinon probablement dans des moments critiques que je ne crois pas, chez nous, très éloignés." (Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill [EL], ed. Francis E. Mineka, CW, XII-XIII [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963], XIII, 503.) In 1851 Mill declined an offer, made by Charles Gavan Duffy and Frederick Lucas, to stand for an Irish county constituency. Mill writes in the Autobiography that "the incompatibility of a seat in Parliament with the office I then held in the India House precluded even consideration of the proposal" (A, 272). 3

xvi

Introduction

consciousness of himself as a mature and experienced politician. Servant of the East India Company from 1823 until its demise as an agency of government in 1858; erstwhile active member of the London Debating Society; political journalist and editor of the Westminster Review in the 1830s; political theorist habitually aware of the need to comprehend contemporary developments and relate them to his analytical objectives—the Mill of the mid-1860s thought he possessed the credentials and qualities necessary to demonstrate what a member of Parliament should be (as opposed to what most members generally were). MILL'S 1865 CANDIDACY IN MARCH of 1865 Mill received a request from James Beal, representing a Committee organized to serve the Radical interest in Westminster, to allow his name to be put forward as a possible candidate for the general election expected to occur before the year was out.4 Beal's association with Mill was not personal. He believed Mill's name could carry Westminster and sought to use Mill's presence in the House to advertise the programme of the Metropolitan Municipal Reform Association, founded by Beal in this same year.5 In Representative Government Mill had criticized both the Corporation of the City of London ("that union of modern jobbery and antiquated foppery") and the Metropolitan Board of Works,6 the primary targets of Beal's reform campaign. Assuming he could be elected, Mill's sponsorship of the Association's proposals in the House would boost the visibility of the issue and the organization that worked to publicize it.7 In response to Beal's approach, Mill indicated that he would be willing to stand should a majority of Liberal electors so wish. But he told Beal in no uncertain terms that his would be no ordinary candidacy. Having implied that they were not doing him a favour in offering him the prospect of a seat in Parliament—"All 4 Beal led a group of " New Reformers " in Westminster that wished to challenge the dominance of the "Old Reformers" who had virtually dictated the representation of the constituency since 1837. Captain Grosvenor was the candidate of the "Old Reformers." See Marc Bradley Baer, "The Politics of London, 1852-1868: Parties, Voters and Representation," Ph.D. diss., 2 vols., University of Iowa, 1976,I, 156-62. 5 See David Owen, The Government of Victorian London, 1855-1889: The Metropolitan Board of Works, the Vestries and the City Corporation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), 196. 6 Essays on Politics and Society, CW, XVIII-XIX (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), XIX, 538-9. 7 While in the House of Commons Mill actively promoted Beal's municipal reform programme. He did so as a member of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government (see App. B), and as a metropolitan member of the House. For his initiatives on the question see Nos. 56, 82, 93, and 105. In the Autobiography Mill refers to his attempt to obtain a Municipal Government for the Metropolis: "on that subject the indifference of the House of Commons was such that I found hardly any help or support within its walls. On this subject, however, I was the organ of an active and intelligent body of persons outside, with whom and not with me the scheme originated, who carried on all the agitation on the subject and drew up the Bills." (A, 276.)

Introduction

xvii

private considerations are against my accepting it"—Mill said that, if elected, he would not undertake to look after the constituency's "local business" in the House of Commons. He went on to observe that a seat in the House interested him only as a vehicle for the promotion of his opinions. The electors were entitled to know the nature of those opinions but they should have no expectation that he would modify them to conform with their own. At this time, however, Mill probably thought more about the contribution he could make as a candidate than as an M.P. If he did not win the opportunity to exemplify the correct modus operandi of a parliamentarian, he might at least draw attention not only to his substantive views on major questions but also to his prescriptive conception of the electoral process. Mill intimated that because it was not quite right for an individual to "want" to be in Parliament, he would do nothing to assist any committee formed to secure his return. It is the interest of the constituencies to be served by men who are not aiming at personal objects, either pecuniary, official, or social, but consenting to undertake gratuitously an onerous duty to the public. That such persons should be made to pay for permission to do hard & difficult work for the general advantage, is neither worthy of a free people, nor is it the way to induce the best men to come forward. In my own case, I must even decline to offer myself to the electors in any manner; because, proud as I should be of their suffrages, & though I would endeavour to fulfil to the best of my ability the duty to which they might think fit to elect me, yet I have no wish to quit my present occupations for the H. of C. unless called upon to do so by my fellow-citizens.8

Elections should involve the qualifications of the candidates—their principles, opinions, and capabilities. They should not be decided by the longest purse. Mill was deeply disturbed by what he perceived as the growing influence of money at elections. He informed Beal of his conviction "that there can be no Parliamentary Reform worthy of the name, so long as a seat in Parliament is only attainable by rich men, or by those who have rich men at their back."9 A man whose Liberal credentials Mill held suspect,10 and whose financial resources were considerable, had already entered the field in Westminster. Captain Robert Wellesley Grosvenor, a nephew of the Marquess of Westminster, had declared his intention of seeking to represent the constituency.11 An inexperienced Liberal barely more than thirty years of age, Grosvenor had little to recommend him but his name and flush connections (usually sufficient recommendations at mid8 Letter to James Beal, Later Letters of John Stuart Mill [LL], ed. Francis E. Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley, CW, XIV-XVII (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), XVI, 1005-6 (7 Mar., 1865). 9 Ibid. 10 In February of 1865 Kate Amberley recorded in her journal: "Mill said they could not have one [a candidate] worse than Mr. Grosvenor, for at a meeting he had been at he had been as illiberal as possible for a liberal to be" (The Amberley Papers, ed. Bertrand and Patricia Russell, 2 vols. [London: Woolf, 1937], I, 369). "One of the sitting Liberal members for Westminster, Sir George De Lacy Evans, had previously announced his retirement. The other sitting Liberal, Sir John Shelley, would subsequently withdraw from the field.

xviii

Introduction

Victorian elections). That Mill felt a special affinity for the Radical tradition of Westminster12 can be accepted as a given; that Grosvenor would do less than justice to that tradition few of advanced persuasion could doubt. If Westminster wished to reclaim its status as the fulcrum of English Radicalism, Mill was inclined to assist if asked. By mid-April the decision had been made—Beal's electoral Committee wanted Mill to be their candidate.13 Even before the invitation was issued, Mill had sensed the momentum building in his favour. On 6 April he sanguinely reported to J.E. Cairnes on recent developments: there is something very encouraging in the enthusiasm which has been excited, both in Westminster and elsewhere, not simply for me, but for the opinion respecting the proper position of a candidate, which I expressed in my letter [to Beal]. . . . The greatest pleasure which public life could give me would be if it enabled me to shew that more can be accomplished by supposing that there is reason and good feeling in the mass of mankind than by proceeding on the ordinary assumption that they are fools and rogues.14

Mill could scarcely have been in a more satisfactory position. He had no intention of allowing the campaign to interfere with his Avignon spring. Beal's Committee had promoted his candidacy and they could now get on with the task of helping Westminster electors prove themselves something other than "fools and rogues." As a matter of principle Mill would do nothing to help himself. He could best instruct the voters of England in the value of purity of election by refusing to allow the Westminster contest to distract him from his work in Avignon.15 He planned to return to London in early July16 to await the judgment of the electorate—a judgment less on his qualifications as a candidate than on the wisdom of the Committee that nominated him and the virtue of the electors to whom that Committee made their appeal.17 By the end of April there were three candidates in the field—Grosvenor, Mill, and W.H. Smith. Smith, the son of Victorian England's most innovative bookseller and now the effective head of the firm, offered himself to the electors as a "Liberal-Conservative." Tories did not win seats in Westminster, and Smith, while he hoped to win Tory votes, did not come forward as a follower of Lord Derby. He claimed to be "unconnected with either of the great political parties"; he 12

William Thomas, The Philosophic Radicals: Nine Studies in Theory and Practice, 1817-1841 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 46-94; and E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (London: Gollancz, 1963), 451-71. 13 For Mill's response, see letter to James Beal, LL, CW, XVI, 1031-5 (17 Apr., 1865). "Ibid., 1026-7. 15 John M. Robson has noted that "more editions of Mill's works appeared in 1865 than in any other year" (Textual Introduction, Essays on Politics and Society, CW, XVIII, Ixxxix). 16 Letter to William Hickson, LL, CW, XVI, 1044-5 (3 May, 1865). 17 In an 1868 article Edward Dicey observed that over £2000 was spent on behalf of Mill' s candidacy in 1865. Mill might have considered that too much, but as Dicey points out, it was Mill's name that made it possible to win on such a small investment ("The Candidates for Next Parliament," Macmillan's Magazine, XVIII [Sept. 1868], 445).

Introduction

xix

desired to act "as an independent member at liberty to vote for measures rather than for men"; he declared that he would "not be a party to any factious attempt to drive Lord Palmerston from power."18 Smith's aim was to combine the votes of the Conservative minority in Westminster with those of Palmerstonian moderates in sufficient number to outdistance Mill. If the Tories had a candidate in this contest, Smith was it. What did Mill think of his chances as he passed the month of May in Avignon? He does not seem to have taken Smith very seriously. On 11 May he wrote Edwin Chadwick: "I do not think the Tories expect their man to come in, otherwise some more considerable person would have started in that interest. "19 Yet at the end of the month he informed Max Kyllman that he thought "it hardly possible" his own candidacy "should succeed, "20 a view echoed by Helen Taylor two days later in a letter to Kate Amberley.21 With two seats open and only three candidates, one of whom Mill two weeks earlier had lightly dismissed, it is not easy to see how such pessimism could be justified. A letter from Chadwick in late May could account for it. Chadwick reported that Mill's Committee wanted him to return to London to meet with them and the electors. Inasmuch as Mill had given clear indication of his unwillingness to play the part of candidate, the approach through Chadwick did not augur well. Mill, nonetheless, held his ground. If I were now to attend meetings and make speeches to the electors in the usual... manner, it would seem as if there had been no truth in my declaration that I did not personally seek to be in Parliament; as if I had merely been finessing to get myself elected without trouble and expense, and having found more difficulty than I expected, had at last shewn myself in my true colours.22

Shortly thereafter Mill's Committee became increasingly uneasy about the charges of atheism being levelled against Mill by elements of the metropolitan press. The controversy stemmed from a passage in the recently published Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy. Attacking H.L. Mansel's theology, Mill had stated that he could not worship a God whose goodness could not be comprehended in relation to human morality: "I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go. "23 In 18 Quoted in Viscount Chilston, W.H. Smith (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965), 50. H.J. Hanham notes that Smith "was in some demand as a Liberal candidate" in the early sixties (Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone [London: Longmans, 1959], 226). 19 LL, CW, XVI, 1050. 20 Ibid., 1063 (30 May, 1865). 21 Amberley Papers, I, 434. 22 Letter to Chadwick, LL, CW, XVI, 1059 (28 May, 1865). 23 An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, CW, IX (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 103.

xx

Introduction

the late spring and early summer of 1865 perhaps no passage in print received more attention.24 Charles Westerton, a prominent member of Mill's Committee, suggested that he return to England to answer the allegations of irreligion being hurled at him. On 21 June Mill told Westerton that a candidate's private religious opinions were no business of the electors. As for his published work, he would not disavow anything he had written, but added that the refusal to worship any God "but a good God" did not make him an atheist. He indignantly declined to dignify the charges brought against him by the likes of the Record and Morning Advertiser by issuing a response.25 Less than a week later, however, Mill agreed to return early to meet with his Committee and to address the electors of Westminster.26 He explained to Chadwick that an urgent letter had arrived from Westerton that left him little choice: "it is due to those who have taken so much trouble about me that I should not give them the impression that for my own convenience I expose them to the probable frustration of all their endeavours."27 Mill's Committee had evidently persuaded him that he could win, but not without helping himself. Smith's candidacy jeopardized Mill's election because of the strained relations prevailing between the Committees of Grosvenor and Mill.28 Few doubted that Grosvenor would top the poll when the day was done, and Mill's Committee feared that in the absence of cooperation between the two Liberal candidates many Whiggish Westminster electors would split their two votes between Grosvenor and Smith, leaving Mill odd man out. The Committee therefore wanted Mill to take up the fight against Smith, and to sanction negotiations with Grosvenor's Committee. On 30 June Mill, now back at Blackheath Park, told Westerton that he would not meet with either Grosvenor or Grosvenor's Committee. But if he would not support cooperation between the two Committees, neither would he forbid it. He insisted that the campaign was theirs, not his, and it was for them to decide how to conduct it.29 Before the first week of July was out, an arrangement with 24 For the press controversy on this passage, see the Spectator, 27 May, 585, and 10 June, 1865, 631-2; the Record, 2 June, 3; 14 June, 2; and 19 June, 1865, 2; Morning Advertiser, 3 June, 5; and 28 June, 1865,2. 25 LL, CW, XVI, 1069-70. 26 See letter to Westerton, ibid., 1073 (26 June, 1865). 21 Ibid., 1072 (26 June, 1865). 28 In May Mill had said of Lord Amberley: "It is really a fine thing in him to have withdrawn from Grosvenor's Committee and come over to me" (letter to Chadwick, ibid., 1050 [15 May, 1865]). 29 Ibid., 1073-4. Helen Taylor wrote to Kate Amberley on 2 July, "Mr. Mill has undergone a sort of persecution from his Committee to show himself and speak at meetings, which, in moderation, however, he is willing to do; but others want him to combine with Captain Grosvenor which he thinks quite out of the question. He has no objection to the Committee co-operating with Captain Grosvenor's committee if they themselves think fit, since he leaves the conduct of the election in their hands, but any personal combination between himself and a man who (as well as the Tory candidate) is employing all the old corrupt practices would be an utter dereliction of the principle on which he declared himself willing to stand." (Amberley Papers, I, 437.)

Introduction

xxi

Grosvenor's Committee had been concluded. Mill tersely disclosed to Chadwick: "there was nothing for me to do but acquiesce in it."30 Mill's "acquiescence" in the deal that was cut by the Committees was the product of the same forces that had moved him to become an "active" candidate. His Committee believed that such a course of action was indispensable to the success of their cause. And now that he was in the thick of it, Mill realized that he too wanted that cause to succeed. He felt most comfortable on the high ground, surveying the battle from an elevated vantage point. But a detachment born of disinterest could not be effectively maintained once the struggle had reached a decisive stage. The role of observer had to be abandoned for that of participant, and Mill descended warily into the contested zone. Having done so, he would not veto the negotiations considered necessary to ensure his return to the House of Commons. THE ELECTION SPEECHES OF 1865 THERE ARE several noteworthy features about Mill's election speeches in July 1865. Not at all surprising is the element of defensiveness in his explanation to his audience of why he had come among them after declaring emphatically that he would not be a candidate in the usual sense. "I was told by those who had good means of judging that many of you desired to know more of me than you have been able to collect from what I have written. Such a statement as that left me no option, for you have a right to know my opinions and to have an opportunity of judging for yourself what man you are to select." (21.) Mill would not admit to his listeners or to himself that he harboured any ambition to sit in the House of Commons. There is more self-deception than fine calculation or hypocrisy in the way he makes bedfellows of disinterestedness and self-advertisement. When I stated in my letter [to Beal] that for my own sake I should not desire to sit in Parliament, I meant what I said. I have no personal objects to be promoted by it. It is a great sacrifice of my personal tastes and pursuits, and of that liberty which I value the more because I have only recently acquired it after a life spent in the restraints and confinements of a public office; for, as you may not perhaps know it, and as many people think that a writer of books, like myself, cannot possibly have any practical knowledge of business, it is a fact that I have passed many hours of every day for thirty-five years in the actual business of government. (19-20.)

Characteristically, the interpretation Mill offers of the contest at hand focuses on issues of principle and morality, not personality. If Grosvenor figures in this interpretation at all, it is only by implication. The arrangement made by their respective Committees notwithstanding, Mill could not at this stage recommend 30

LL, CW, XVI, 1075 (6 July, 1865).

xxii

Introduction

Grosvenor to the electors of Westminster. After what had transpired, however, neither could he condemn him. The best Mill could do was ignore Grosvenor and behave as though the choice before the voters was between Smith and himself, each representing diametrically opposed versions of what the electoral process was about. If Westminster's virtue was for sale, Mill suggested, Smith could meet the price. Emphasizing the symbolic importance of the decision Westminster had to make, Mill urged her electors in flattering terms to demonstrate that they could not be bought, by supporting the candidate who preferred the public to the private interest. It is no exaggeration to say that all eyes are upon you. Every friend of freedom and purity of election in the country is looking to you with anxious feelings. . . . If you elect me and I should turn out a failure . . . you would have nothing to be ashamed of. You would have acted an honest part and done that which at the time seemed to be best for the public good. Can the same thing be said if you return the candidate of a party against which for a century past Westminster has in the most emphatic manner protested, for his money? If this great constituency should so degrade itself it will not only be the deepest mortification to all who put faith in popular institutions, but Westminster will have fallen from her glory, and she can never hold her head as high as she has done, because the progress of popular institutions, which cannot possibly be stopped, will have to go on in future without her. (25-6.)

Mill repeatedly hammered away in his election speeches at the unwholesome influence of money in the British political system. His rhetoric was often quite unlike that he adopted later in the House of Commons. Although he certainly did not hesitate to express his views frankly and forcefully in parliamentary debates, he for the most part phrased his thoughts with a judiciousness frequently absent from his extra-parliamentary speeches. He may have sometimes misjudged his audiences but he invariably sought to manifest a sensitivity to their character and expectations. On 8 July Mill asked his hearers whether they thought it a good thing that the House of Commons should be the preserve of the rich or (an oblique reference to Grosvenor?) "men with rich connections?" Admitting that the rich showed a paternalistic concern for the poor, Mill nonetheless insisted that their fundamental sympathies lay with their own kind. In language that some would probably have considered inflammatory, inciting bad feeling between the poor and their betters, Mill revealed his capacity for platform oratory. The rich had almost universally a kind of patronising and protective sympathy for the poor, such as shepherds had for their flocks—only that was conditional upon the flock always behaving like sheep. But if the sheep tried to have a voice in their own affairs, he was afraid that a good many shepherds would be willing to call in the wolves. (32.)

That Mill had a certain relish for polemical combat had been evident long before his candidature; but he had no time for polemic for the sake of polemic. Moral purpose always informed his engagement in controversy. He might have welcomed the opportunity to pitch his message at a level somewhat beneath that he

Introduction

xxiii

thought suitable for the printed page or the House of Commons, but for all that, the moral intent of the message was not blunted. Mill felt very strongly that purity of election was essential to a healthy political order. Something nobler than money should determine the outcome of elections. As he saw it, his candidacy was undertaken to promote the integrity of the electoral process, and he would have been derelict had he not drawn attention to this aspect of his campaign. Mill did not eschew the philosophical in these election speeches, setting forth with clarity and directness the method of his politics and offering his prospective constituents a line of vision that looked beyond the pressures, constraints, and opportunities of the moment. He would readily confess that good will and altruistic motives in themselves did not make the ideal politician—a realistic grasp of immediate difficulties, limitations, and contingencies was essential to working a representative political system to progressive advantage. In effect Mill argued that the best politician was one who used the possibilities inherent in a particular political context to further ultimate objectives favourable to the public interest. In the nature of things, however, many could not see what the future required of the present. Even well-intentioned and liberal-minded politicians could all too easily succumb to the demands, details, and routines of day-to-day political life, and conclude that acting upon principle was a luxury they could ill afford. Progress could not result from subordinating principle to practice, but from seeking the maximum good in each specific set of circumstances. Mill laid out the essence of his political method to the electors of Westminster on 5 July in St. James's Hall. Believing as I do that society and political institutions are, or ought to be, in a state of progressive advance; that it is the very nature of progress to lead us to recognise as truths what we do not as yet see to be truths; believing also t h a t . . . it is possible to see a certain distance before us, and to be able to distinguish beforehand some of these truths of the future, and to assist others to see them—I certainly think there are truths which the time has now arrived for proclaiming, although the time may not yet have arrived for carrying them into effect. That is what I mean by advanced Liberalism. But does it follow that, because a man sees something of the future, he is incapable of judging of the past? ... I venture to reverse the proposition. The only persons who can judge for the present... are those who include to-morrow in their deliberations. We can see the direction in which things are tending, and which of those tendencies we are to encourage and which to resist. . . . But while I would refuse to suppress one iota of the opinions I consider best, I confess I would not object to accept any reasonable compromise which would give me even a little of that of which I hope in time to obtain the whole. (23.)

One could compromise one's principles or one could compromise in the interest of one's principles. While in the House of Commons Mill would strive to avoid the former and pursue willingly the latter, which he deemed both honourable and wise. Of course the impact of Mill's appearances on the results of the Westminster contest cannot be known. It is safe to say they did him no harm. On polling day, 12 July, only nine votes separated Mill and Grosvenor (the latter headed the poll with

xxiv

Introduction

4,534 votes), while Smith trailed by seven hundred. In his speech following the declaration of the poll, Mill retroactively gave his imprimatur to the compact that encouraged Liberal electors to support both Mill and Grosvenor rather than plump for either or split their votes between Grosvenor and Smith.31 Mill approvingly observed that the electors of Westminster had "shown that whatever differences of opinion may exist amongst the several shades of Liberals, whatever severe criticisms they may occasionally make on each other, they are ready to help and co-operate with one another when the time of need arrives" (45). Part of the politician's art is to make a virtue of necessity. Yet it may be that cooperation with Grosvenor was not vital to Mill's victory. It had been some time since Westminster had had an opportunity to put its mark on a general election. It did so in 1865 by electing Mill; it did so in 1868 by defeating him. A month before polling day in the first election Lord Russell had written to Amberley: "I expect Mill to come in for Westminster, & tho' I am far from agreeing with him, I think he is too distinguished a man to be rejected. "32 Mill's triumph did not reflect any deep personal commitment to him among the mass of Westminster electors. Bagehot remarked on Mill's success in The English Constitution: "what did the electors of Westminster know of Mr. Mill? What fraction of his mind could be imagined by any percentage of their minds? They meant to do homage to mental ability, but it was the worship of an unknown god—if ever there was such a thing in the world."33 MILL AND PARTY THE MILL ELECTED by Westminster in 1865 represented no identifiable group, interest, or party in England. He could fairly be described as a Radical or advanced Liberal, but he occupied an unequivocally independent and highly personal position within the spectrum of left-wing liberalism. The weight of his established 31

Grosvenor's Committee offered more than advice to Liberal electors. Cabs, paid for by Grosvenor, transported supporters of the Liberal candidates to the polls. See Leslie Stephen, "On the Choice of Representatives by Popular Constituencies," in Essays on Reform, ed. Leslie Stephen (London: Macmillan, 1867), 111-12. 32 Amberley Papers, I, 394. 33 The English Constitution, in Political Essays, ed. Norman St. John Stevas, Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, V-VIII (London: The Economist, 1974), V, 302. In 1867 Leslie Stephen asserted that "the efficient cause of Mr. Mill's election was the enthusiasm which his name excited in a large number of thinking and educated men; that the zeal with which they supported him induced the electors to accept him upon their recommendation; and that, in short, whatever were the intermediate steps by which Mr. Mill's reputation was brought to bear upon the electors' votes, that reputation really caused his election" ("On the Choice of Representatives," 112). In a similar vein, Henry Taylor wrote that Mill "furnished the first example of a man sought out by a large constituency to represent them in the House of Commons, without any proposal or desire of his own to do so, partly on account of his political opinions no doubt, but chiefly on the ground of his eminence as a political philosopher" (Autobiography, 2 vols. [London: Longmans, Green, 1885], I, 80).

Introduction

xxv

intellectual and moral authority had been employed to promote certain principles and propositions, not to further the political interests or ambitions of a particular set of men who defined their aims in relation to institutional party objectives. Mill did not lack the rudimentary elements of a theory of party ,34 nor was he opposed to organized cooperation among men pursuing common goals (his chairmanship of the Jamaica Committee and, later, of the Land Tenure Reform Association come immediately to mind). Although he generally preferred Liberals to Tories, Mill did not find much to choose between Palmerston and Derby,35 and the divisions within Radical ranks were such as to render impossible an affiliation with any specific segment of advanced opinion. The peculiar character of Mill's radicalism was highlighted by Bagehot in the latter's Economist article of 29 April, 1865. Mill's letter of 17 April to Beal, outlining his position on some of the major issues of the day, was intended for publication (it appeared in the Daily News, Morning Advertiser, and The Times on 21 April). This letter served as Mill's election address, which Bagehot considered "one of the most remarkable . . . ever delivered by any candidate to any constituency,—especially in respect to the qualities of honesty, simplicity, and courage." According to Bagehot, Mill's radicalism, grounded in "a thorough logical capacity, unflinching integrity of purpose, and a profound knowledge of the facts and principles involved," amounted to a shattering indictment of the creed of the advanced wing of the Liberal party. Bagehot proceeded to cite the opinions expressed by Mill in his letter to Beal and to contrast them with the views of the "Radicals" on the subjects concerned. He observed that the Radicals want the ballot whereas Mill does not; the Radicals want government revenues to be drawn exclusively from direct taxation whereas Mill prefers a mixture of direct and indirect taxes; the Radicals stand for a foreign policy based on the principle of non-intervention whereas Mill asserts that there are circumstances in which English intervention on behalf of freedom abroad may be justified; the Radicals recommend drastic reductions in military expenditure whereas Mill favours only 34 See Bruce L. Kinzer, "J.S. Mill and the Problem of Party," Journal of British Studies, XXI (1981), 106-22. 35 Mill's hostility to the party environment of the Palmerstonian ascendancy was profound. On the change at the top from Derby to Palmerston in June of 1859 Mill wrote: "I see no prospect of anything but mischief from the change of ministry. . . . The new cabinet will never be able to agree on anything but the well worn useless shibboleths of Whig mitigated democracy. . . . The Liberals, by refusing to take the [Reform] bill of the late government as the foundation for theirs, have given redoubled force to the mischievous custom almost universal in Parliament, that whatever one party brings forward, the other is sure to oppose. . . . All parties seem to have joined in working the vices and weak points of popular representation for their miserably low selfish ends, instead of uniting to free representative institutions from the mischief and discredit of them." (Letter to Thomas Hare, LL, CW, XV, 626-7 [17 June, 1859].) Of the parliamentary politics of the late 1850s Norman Gash has said: "Majorities in divisions were composed to a large extent of men to whom the matter in dispute was less important than the result. Factious votes were justified by disingenuous arguments in support of dishonest resolutions." (Aristocracy and People: Britain, 1815-1865 [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979], 266.)

xxvi

Introduction

those economies that will in no respect weaken England's capacity to defend her national interests in the face of aggressive and potentially hostile European despotisms; the Radicals urge abolition of purchase in the army whereas Mill cautions that thought must be given to ensure that the cure for the disease not be more damaging than the disease itself; the Radicals call for the complete abolition of flogging whereas Mill thinks it an appropriate punishment for certain crimes; the Radicals strongly oppose whereas Mill ardently supports the representation of minorities.36 Bagehot is using Mill to slam the radicalism of Bright and the Manchester School. In doing so he occasionally distorts the content of Mill's letter. Mill's preference for a combination of direct and indirect taxation is qualified by his assertion that taxes should not be placed on "the necessaries of life."37 From Bagehot's discussion of Mill's views on purchase in the army one would not infer Mill's confidence that a satisfactory means could be devised for terminating "the monopoly by certain classes of the posts of emolument." To flogging Mill is "entirely opposed . . . except for crimes of brutality. "38 Yet Mill would have no wish to deny Bagehot's basic contention: his radicalism was not Blight's. Apart from their differences on specific issues, there is evidence to show that Mill regarded Bright as a demagogue39 who represented an inferior brand of radicalism from which Mill desired to distance himself. How can this depiction of Mill as an independent agent in 1865, a depiction that in the Autobiography he by implication extends to his entire parliamentary career,40 be squared with John Vincent's treatment of Mill as "a good party man in Parliament"?41 By "a good party man" Vincent means an admirer and supporter of Gladstone. When Mill took his seat in February of 1866 the House of Commons was led not by Palmerston, who had died the previous autumn, but by Gladstone, who together with Russell headed a Liberal government pledged to introduce a reform bill. In Palmerston's hand had lain the key to both the stability and sterility of the politics of the early 1860s, and he held it firmly in his grasp to the very end, knowing there was no one to whom he could safely pass it on.42 Gladstone and Palmerston had been at odds before and after the former accepted the Chancellor36 "Mr. Mill's Address to the Electors of Westminster," in Historical Essays, ed. Norman St. John Stevas, Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, III-IV (London: The Economist, 1968), HI, 541-6. 37 Letter to Beal, LL, CW, XVI, 1032 (17 Apr., 1865). 38 Ibid., 1034. 39 Letter to Chadwick, ibid., XV, 654-5 (20 Dec., 1859). 40 A, 275-6. 41 John Vincent, The Formation of the Liberal Party, 1857-1868 (London: Constable, 1966), 158-61. 42 In June of 1865 Blackwood's Magazine observed that Palmerston "has long arrived at the conviction that after him will come chaos; and as far as his own party is concerned, we believe him to be right. . . . [I]t is certain that to the future he looks forward with an alarm which he scarcely takes the trouble to disguise, and that his great bugbear of all is the almost certain advance of democracy." (G.R. Gleig, "The Government and the Budget," Blackwood's Magazine, CXVII [June 1865], 754.)

Introduction

xxvii 43

ship of the Exchequer in the Liberal administration formed in 1859. By comparison with Palmerston, Gladstone, notwithstanding his Tory antecedents and instincts, represented the politics of movement. Palmerston's departure dramatically transformed the political context within which Mill found himself. Many whose liberalism was so moderate as to verge on the nominal had comfortably followed Palmerston. These could not help but be uneasy at the prospect of a government subject to the pre-eminent influence of a man thought by more than a few to be constitutionally (in both senses of the word) unsound.44 The Conservatives, relegated to minority status since the split over the Corn Laws, would now prepare to exploit the fissures opening in Liberal ranks. Their animus against Gladstone was vehement. That Mill should be drawn to a politician of Gladstone's intellectual stature and great abilities with enemies such as these is no great mystery. The vulnerability of the Russell-Gladstone government led Mill to limit his independence. For much of the eighteen months following the resignation of Russell and Gladstone in June 1866, the latter's leadership of the party was not secure. On those issues Gladstone chose to stake his authority on, Mill circumspectly avoided action that might weaken Gladstone's position. Vincent therefore is not wrong to see Mill as "a good party man," but he may be misleading. Mill could back Gladstone and yet retain a good deal of independence. On a whole range of subjects upon which Mill felt strongly—Jamaica, women's suffrage, proportional representation, metropolitan government—he could not look to Gladstone to take the lead. But because these were not "party" questions, in striking an independent line on them Mill in no way jeopardized Gladstone's leadership. The character of the House of Commons and the party system of the 1860s gave Mill scope to exercise a marked degree of autonomy. The initiatives he took, many of which had no chance of attracting Gladstone's endorsement, were often on subjects that fell outside the sphere of party questions as defined by the political world Mill had entered in February of 1866. Mill has various things to say about his mission in the House of Commons. In the Autobiography he emphasizes an independent strategy based on the premise that he should concentrate on doing what others would not or could not do so well. He was less interested in parliamentary influence for himself than in gaining exposure for views that would remain unexpressed were it not for his presence. An element of isolation was inherent in his approach. He often found himself taking up subjects "on which the bulk of the Liberal party, even the advanced portion of it, either were of a different opinion from mine, or were comparatively indifferent. "45 Mill suggests that he chose a role that required more courage than 43

See Richard Shannon, Gladstone, I,1809-1865 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1982), 336-7, 358, 359, and Chaps, vii and viii, passim. 44 T To make matters worse, Gladstone had recently descended from the rarefied atmosphere of Oxford University, where he had been defeated in 1865, into South Lancashire, a pit of popular politics. 45 A, 275.

xxviii

Introduction

most of his Radical colleagues could muster. His duty was "to come to the front in defence of advanced Liberalism on occasions when the obloquy to be encountered was such as most of the advanced Liberals in the House, preferred not to incur. "46 Associated with this role was a larger ambition: the construction of an advanced Liberal party, which, he told Theodor Gomperz, could not be done "except in the House of Commons."47 Mill had to use his opportunity to show Liberals in the House and in the country that his brand of liberalism could practically contribute to the formation of a Gladstone-led party built on a foundation of sound Radical doctrine. In essence, Mill saw himself as a shaper of future public and party opinion. He explained to a correspondent, in language rather more grandiose than he employed in the Autobiography: "I look upon the House of Commons not as a place where important practical improvements can be effected by anything I can do there, but as an elevated Tribune or Chair from which to preach larger ideas than can at present be realised. "48 Hence Mill's objectives in the House were much like those in his political writings. They were educative in nature. He had moved into a new forum in the hope that he could reach more people more effectively than he had hitherto. There is no reason to question the sincerity of Mill's statements about purpose. Yet they convey a conception of his part in the parliamentary history of these years that is altogether too static and abstract. No politician in this Parliament functioned within a fixed political context. The major players—Russell, Gladstone, Derby, Disraeli, Bright—had a good deal to do with what Parliament would or would not do, but even they could not control the ebb and flow of political currents that swept through the House of Commons in 1866-67. On many important questions Mill became enmeshed in a web not of his own making. He might be able to affect the web's configuration but he could not alter its constitution in any fundamental way. He could exercise no influence whatsoever if he pretended that the web had nothing to do with him. His handling of the overwhelmingly dominant issue of parliamentary reform reveals him working those strands that seemed to him most promising. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM MILL HAD AN AGENDA of reform but it was not his agenda that counted. He mighi want adult suffrage limited only by a literacy qualification, and a redistribution modelled at least in part on Thomas Hare's scheme of personal representation.49 46

Ibid., 216.

47

LL, CW, XVI, 1197 (22 Aug., 1866). Mill admitted to Gomperz doubts concerning the value "of chipping off little bits of one's thought, of a size to be swallowed by a set of diminutive practical politicians incapable of digesting them" (ibid., 1196). 48 Letter to Arnold Ruge, ibid., 1234 (7 Feb., 1867). 49 Letter to Kyllman, ibid., 998 (15 Feb., 1865).

Introduction

xxix

But only a government bill could pass through Parliament and Mill would not be one of its draughtsmen. The 1866 Bill of record would be the work of Russell and Gladstone. Mill cared much about the content of a reform measure but in 1866 he cared more about supporting Gladstone. In February of 1865, five months before his triumph at Westminster and eight months before Palmerston's death, Mill told Max Kyllman, "no Reform Bill which we are likely to see for some time to come, will be worth moving hand or foot for. "50 By the end of the year he had come to view the matter rather differently, admitting to Chadwick, The whole of our laws of election from top to bottom require to be reconstructed on new principles: but to get those principles into people's heads is work for many years, and they will not wait that time for the next step in reform. . . . And perhaps some measure of reform is as likely to promote as to delay other improvements in the representative system.51

Mill had not changed his ideas concerning what should go into a reform bill. Nor did he expect that any bill emerging from the deliberations of the Liberal government would remotely resemble what he wanted. But Mill was now member for Westminster; Palmerston was dead; Russell and Gladstone had left no doubt that parliamentary reform would be the centrepiece of their 1866 legislative programme. Where Gladstone led on this critical party question, Mill would follow. A comparison of a letter Mill wrote to Hare in January of 1866 with his response to Gladstone's Reform Bill shows the extent to which he had chained himself to Gladstone's slow-moving chariot. To Hare Mill expatiated on the dangers a bill confined to franchise extension presented to their position. The proposal and passage of such a bill, Mill argued, would exclude the subject of personal representation from the sphere of parliamentary discussion. Once a reform bill had been enacted "the whole subject of changes in the representation will be tabooed for years to come."52 (Chadwick, after receiving Mill's letter of December 1865, would presumably not have attributed such an opinion to his friend.) Mill did not expect the Liberal government to offer a measure that incorporated the views he and Hare held, but he did hope the bill would be sufficiently broad in scope to justify raising the issues that he wanted to air in the House of Commons. The Bill Gladstone introduced on 12 March provided for a reduction in the borough household qualification from £10 to £7 and for a county occupation franchise of £14. It was a franchise bill and nothing more.53 Had it passed, 50

lbid.,997(15Feb., 1865). lbid., 1129 (29 Dec., 1865). 52 Ibid., 1138-9(11 Jan., 1866). 53 For the cabinet's decision not to take up redistribution, see Maurice Cowling, 1867: Disraeli, Gladstone and Revolution: The Passing of the Second Reform Bill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 99-100. After indicating in March that it would offer a Seats Bill only after the second reading of the Franchise Bill, the government introduced the measure on 7 May. On 31 May Mill spoke on this Bill and briefly argued the case for personal representation. He did not oppose Gladstone's redistribution scheme. 5l

xxx

Introduction

working-class voters would have constituted approximately a quarter of the total electorate of England and Wales (a doubling of working-class electoral weight). The Tories were not inclined to mount a frontal assault on the measure. They were more than happy to let Robert Lowe and the band of Liberal renegades hostile to parliamentary reform, whom Bright referred to as the "Adullamites," make the running. Although the bulk of Mill's fine 13 April speech (No. 16) focused on the need for working-class enfranchisement, the occasion for it was a motion tabled by Lord Grosvenor (an Adullamite) and seconded by Lord Stanley (a Conservative for whom Mill had considerable regard) that called for postponement of the Bill's second reading until a redistribution package had been presented. Mill, knowing that the Adullamites and their Tory sympathizers wanted to wreck the Bill, apprehended that from such a wreckage Gladstone would not emerge without serious injury. That Mill must have agreed with the substance of Grosvenor's motion did not move him to support it. The preface to his elegant argument on behalf of parliamentary reform was devoted to a defence of the ministry's exclusive concentration on the franchise. Mill insisted that the Bill, though "far more moderate than is desired by the majority of reformers," significantly enlarged working-class electoral power and was therefore "not only a valuable part of a scheme of Parliamentary Reform, but highly valuable even if nothing else were to follow" (60-1).54 The government and its Bill survived for another two months. On 18 June Lord Dunkellin's amendment to substitute a rating for a rental franchise in the boroughs was carried against the ministry by a vote of 315 to 304.55 A week later the Russell-Gladstone government resigned. Throughout their difficulties over the reform question, Mill had steadfastly adhered to the Gladstonian line.56 Mill's behaviour should not be attributed to servility. He knew what he was doing and why he was doing it. He admired Gladstone and cast him as the future leader of a radicalized Liberal party. That radicalization could occur only in conjunction with a marked increase of working-class political power. Mill had grave misgivings about class power of any sort and did not advocate working-class political ascendancy.57 The enormous appeal Hare's scheme had for Mill lay 54 Gladstone's diary entry for 13 April includes: "Reform Debate. Mill admirable." (Gladstone Diaries, ed. H.C.G. Matthew, Vol. VI: 1861-1868 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978], 430.) 55 A rating value of seven pounds was approximately equivalent to an eight-pound rental value. The intent of the amendment was to restrict the extent of working-class enfranchisement. Mill's prediction that the Bill would be "carried by increasing instead of diminishing majorities" proved mistaken (57). 56 Kate Amberley recorded in her journal on 23 June a conversation with Gladstone. "I told him that Mill was so grieved at the Govt. going out, and said t h a t . . . he had never hoped to be under a leader with whom he could feel so much sympathy and respect as he did for Gladstone, and Gladstone answered 'Poor fellow, he has all through been most kind and indulgent to me'" (Amberley Papers, I, 516). 57 To David Urquhart Mill wrote: "I doubt not that they would be corrupted like other classes by becoming the predominant power in the country, though probably in a less degree because in a multitude the general feelings of human nature are usually more powerful & class feeling less so than in a small body. But I do not want to make them predominant." (LL, CW, XVI, 1209 [26 Oct., 1866].)

Introduction

xxxi

partly in its capacity to promote both democratic political participation and meritocratic government.58 Aristocratic and middle-class prejudices retarded social and political improvement. A sizeable injection of working-class influence was required to achieve the accelerated rate of progress Mill wished to foster. He sensed the growth of working-class activism, as manifested in the Reform League, and put this together with Gladstonian leadership and franchise extension to come up with a new and better political order. In January of 1866 he told H. S. Chapman, English statesmanship will have to assume a new character, and to look in a more direct way than before to the interests of posterity. We are now . . . standing on the very boundary line between this new statesmanship and the old; and the next generation will be accustomed to a very different set of political arguments and topics from those of the present and past.59

In 1866 and 1867 Mill was prepared to serve as a bridge between Gladstonian parliamentary Liberalism and working-class political agitation. There were other bridges (Bright was unquestionably the most important). But Mill's conduct inside and outside the House of Commons in relation to both Gladstone's position and the aspirations of the politically conscious members of the working classes resonates with an acute sensitivity to new forces at work and their potential for constructive political engagement. The resignation of Russell and Gladstone was followed by the formation of a minority Conservative government under Derby and Disraeli. The public agitation for parliamentary reform, led by the Manchester based middle-class dominated Reform Union and the metropolitan based artisan dominated Reform League, heated up in response.60 The Reform League, eager to impress upon the new government the earnestness of the working classes on the question of the franchise, announced their sponsorship of a mass public demonstration to be held in Hyde Park on 23 July. The right to hold public meetings had been one of the issues galvanizing those reponsible for organizing the Reform League. The view of the Derby ministry, one supported by Sir George Grey, Home Secretary in previous Liberal administrations, was that Royal Parks were not appropriate locations for public meetings, and that such gatherings were prohibited by law.61 The Tory Home Secretary, Spencer Walpole, authorized Sir Richard Mayne, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to issue an order forbidding the meeting.62 At about 6 p.m. on 23 July the Leaguers, led by their President, Edmond Beales, arrived at the 58 For a discussion of Hare's scheme in relation to Mill's preoccupations with participation and competence, see Dennis F. Thompson, John Stuart Mill and Representative Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 102-12. 59 LL, CW, XVI, 1137 (6 Jan., 1866). 60 For the public agitation, see Cowling, 1867,242-86; Frances Elma Gillespie, Labor and Politics in England, 1850-1867 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1927), 235-88; and Royden Harrison, Before the Socialists: Studies in Labour and Politics, 1861-1881 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965), 78-136. Both the Union and the League had endorsed Gladstone's Reform Bill. 61 See Grey's speech of 19 July, 1866: Parliamentary Debates [PD], 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1074-5. 62 Ibid., 1073-4.

xxxii

Introduction

locked gates of Hyde Park and were confronted by a police barricade. Beales did not mind the government's thinking he carried the match that could ignite an agitation of truly dangerous proportions, but he had no intention of striking that match. On being informed that the demonstrators would not be admitted to the Park, Beales led his forces off to Trafalgar Square. The confusion arising from the shift, aggravated by the turbulence of a crowd that apparently included more than a few ruffians out for a bit of fun, resulted in the felling of the Park railings. Three days of commotion in Hyde Park ensued. Damage to the grounds was fairly extensive and some two hundred people were injured.63 In his speech of 24 July, given while the tumult was still in progress, Mill laid responsibility at the government's door. In attempting to enforce an exclusion for which there could be no justification, the ministry had precipitated the disturbance and heightened bad feeling between the governing classes and the masses. "Noble Lords and right honourable Gentlemen opposite may be congratulated on having done a job of work last night which will require wiser men than they are, many years to efface the consequences of" (100). Under the circumstances, Mill's speech, delivered in a House many of whose members felt they had good cause to be alarmed at the recent turn of events, was remarkably bold.64 Disraeli, cognizant that Mill's opinions on this matter were shared by few M.P.s on either side of the House, rose when Mill resumed his seat, and opened with an observation designed to accentuate Mill's isolation: "I take it for granted . . . that the speech we have just heard is one of those intended to be delivered in Hyde Park, and if I may judge from it as a sample, we can gather a very good idea of the rhetoric which will prevail at those periodical meetings we are promised." In a masterful brief speech calculated to highlight the contrast between the responsible conduct of ministers of the crown and the irresponsible language of the member for Westminster, Disraeli rejected Mill's imputations. He denied that the government was opposed to working-class political meetings, but declared that these should be held "at the proper time and place." The 23rd of July at Hyde Park, Disraeli implied, was neither, as the "riot, tumult, and disturbance" unleashed by the League's initiative unhappily demonstrated.65 Mill devotes more than a page of the Autobiography to the curious and rather enigmatic aftermath of the Hyde Park riots. A trace of bitterness enters into his account of the part he played in dissuading the League from endeavouring to hold a meeting in Hyde Park on 31 July in defiance of the government. Mill thought it 63 Henry Broadhurst, who was present, gives a useful account of the riots in his autobiography, The Story of His Life from a Stonesmason's Bench to the Treasury Bench (London: Hutchinson, 1901), 33-40; see also the full report in the Daily News, 24 July, 1866, 5. 64 Matthew Arnold's linking of Mill and Jacobinism in Culture and Anarchy derived at least in part from Arnold's hostile response to the Hyde Park riots and Mill's defence of the Reform League. See Culture and Anarchy with Friendship's Garland and Some Literary Essays, ed. R.H. Super, Complete Prose Works of Matthew Arnold, V (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965), 111, 132-3. 6S PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1412-14.

Introduction

xxxiii

highly probable that serious violence would erupt from such a confrontation and that nothing good could come of it. Having successfully made his case, he agreed to address a League meeting at the Agricultural Hall on the 30th (No. 32). He believed that he had been "the means of preventing much mischief." His bitterness was directed not against the League but against certain elements of the metropolitan press that had accused him of being "intemperate and passionate." "I do not know," he said, "what they expected from me; but they had reason to be thankful to me if they knew from what I had in all probability preserved them. And I do not believe it could have been done, at that particular juncture, by any one else."66 The object of reviewing this well-known episode is not to assess the accuracy of Mill's claims. Evelyn L. Pugh, after a searching and sympathetic enquiry into Mill's connection with the Hyde Park affair, concedes that there is no evidence to corroborate Mill's assessment of his effectiveness. What Mill reported no doubt did occur, but his interpretation perhaps assigns too much weight to his intervention.67 Whatever the practical import of Mill's involvement with the League in late July of 1866, the whole business usefully illuminates the purposeful intent that fashioned his response to the reform crisis of 1866-67. The political coin minted by Mill in answer to the franchise question had Gladstone on one side and the working classes on the other. Through Gladstone the working classes could be integrated into the political process. The mode of achieving this objective could also contribute to a transformation of the Liberal party into an effective instrument of social and political reform.68 But for Gladstone to keep in the air a sufficient number of balls to secure his ascendancy over other ambitious jugglers, he had to put a respectable distance between himself and the radicalism of the Reform League. To some degree both Bright and Mill consciously acted as Gladstone's surrogates.69 Not too much should be made of Mill's refusal to join the Reform League. Considering the strong exception he took to its programme of manhood (rather than adult) suffrage and the ballot, his identification with its struggle is impressive. In declining the invitation to join the League, Mill observed that "the general promotion of the Reform cause is the main point at present, and . . . advanced reformers, without suppressing their opinions on the points on which 66

A, 278-9. EvelynL. Pugh, "J.S. Mill's Autobiography and the Hyde ParkRiots," Research Studies, L(Mar. 1982), 1-20. Pugh rightly emphasizes the central role Mill played in killing the 1867 government bill to prohibit public meetings in Royal Parks. 68 Mill wrote to Fawcett: "One of the most important consequences of giving a share in the government to the working classes, is that there will then be some members of the House with whom it will no longer be an axiom that human society exists for the sake of property in land—a grovelling superstition which is still in full force among the higher classes " (LL, CW, XVI, 1130 [ 1 Jan., 1866]). 69 For a stimulating discussion of Bright, Mill, and the emergence of the Gladstonian Liberal party, see Vincent, Formation of the Liberal Party, 149-211. 67

xxxiv

Introduction

they may still differ, should act together as one man in the common cause. "70 Not only did Mill defend the League in the Commons on the Hyde Park question, but he sent a £5 donation to assist those arrested by the police on 23 July.71 In February of 1867 he participated in a deputation whose purpose was to persuade Walpole to appoint a working man to the Royal Commission on Trades Unions.72 In the summer of 1867 Mill subscribed to a Reform League fund established to organize the newly enfranchised electors on behalf of advanced Liberalism.73 The League also had cause to appreciate Mill's role in the successful fight to stop the 1867 Parks Bill from getting through the House of Commons. In late July of 1866, in urging caution on the League, Mill had drawn on some of the moral and political capital he had invested in the working-class movement. He had done what he could to prevent violence and to ease the war of nerves between the authorities and the agitators. Mill asserted himself not merely for the sake of peace. Indeed, he had no desire to moderate the conflict between the government and the League; rather, he sought to enclose the League's expression of that conflict within bounds prescribed by the need to build and sustain an unofficial and necessarily unacknowledged alliance between Gladstone and the working-class reform movement. The same concern prompted Mill to call upon the League to exercise self-restraint in early 1867. At a League-organized conference of late February, delegates representing the League and the trades unions passed a resolution threatening that, in the event of governmental resistance to working-class enfranchisement, it would "be necessary to consider the propriety of those classes adopting a universal cessation from labour until their political rights are conceded."74 The Morning Star reported that the speeches given at the meeting were demagogic.75 On reading this report Mill wrote to William Randal Cremer, a leading figure in trades union and radical political circles, protesting against the extreme rhetoric employed on the occasion. Mill argued that any reform bill acceptable to Parliament would in the nature of things have to be a compromise. Violent language hinting at "revolutionary expedients" should not be indulged in by those leading the agitation. The conditions that might justify revolution, Mill unequivocally stated, did not exist in England.76 He did not deny that League 70

Letter to [George Howell?], LL, CW, XVII, 2010-11 (22 July, 1865). Letter to Edmond Scales, ibid., XVI, 1186 (26 July, 1866). 72 See 133-4, and letter to George Jacob Holyoake, LL, CW, XVI, 1242-3 (16 Feb., 1867). "Letter to Beales, ibid., 1291-2 (22 July, 1867). 74 Quoted in Gillespie, Labor and Politics, 284. 75 Morning Star, 28 Feb., 1867, 2. 76 What conditions could justify revolution? "One is personal oppression & tyranny & consequent personal suffering of such intensity that to put an immediate stop to them is worth almost any amount of present evil & future danger. The other is when either the system of government does not permit the redress of grievances to be sought by peaceable & legal means, or when those means have been perseveringly exerted to the utmost for a long series of years, & their inefficacy has been demonstrated by experiment." (Letter to W.R. Cremer, LL, CW, XVI, 1248 [1 Mar., 1867].) 71

Introduction

xxxv

members had been given "ample provocation and abundant excuse" for their "feelings of irritation." To allow such irritation to rob them of their sense of proportion, however, was likely to harm the cause of reform. Especially arousing Mill's displeasure was the message carried in the speeches of "a determined rejection beforehand of all compromise on the Reform question, even if proposed by the public men in whose sincerity & zeal as reformers you have repeatedly expressed the fullest confidence. "77 Mill feared that the rather tenuous line joining Gladstone to the working-class reform movement was beginning to fragment. The course pursued by Derby and Disraeli in 1867 further jeopardized the enterprise to which Mill had committed himself. The parliamentary struggle over the details of the Conservative Reform Bill centred on the borough householders and their payment of rates. Derby and Disraeli offered borough household suffrage, subject to the stipulation that only householders who paid their rates directly should be eligible for the franchise. In 171 boroughs the composition of rates, whereby the local authorities compounded with the landlords for the payment of the occupier's rates, had proved a highly convenient mechanism.78 These compound householders, whose names did not appear on the rating book, would be excluded from the vote under clause 3 of the Tory Bill. Disraeli would show himself to be infinitely flexible in committee but he rigidly maintained that on the principle of ratepaying the Bill would stand or fall.79 Gladstone was appalled by what he took to be the dishonest and fraudulent character of the Bill. Early in the debate on clause 3 he moved to eliminate for electoral purposes the distinction between direct ratepayers and compounders. Gladstone held no brief for household suffrage "pure and simple." His humiliating setback of the previous session doubtless very much with him, Gladstone was now ready to put his strength to the test in opposition to the aspect of the Tory Bill that he thought most unacceptable. The outcome he looked for was a defeat of the government and settlement of the question on terms that satisfied his own preferences. But his reach exceeded his grasp. In the division of 12 April forty-seven Liberals, a number of Radicals among them, rejected Gladstone's 77

Ibid., 1247-8. There were approximately 486,000 compound householders in parliamentary boroughs. The system spared the occupier the bother of putting aside money to meet his quarterly rating obligations. What was in it for the landlord and local authority? "A deduction of twenty or twenty-five per cent was allowed when the rate was compounded, so that the owner of fifty or a hundred small houses derived no small profit by calling on his tenants to pay the full rate in their rent, while he had a discount in paying it over to the parish. Naturally it was convenient for the parish to be saved the trouble of collecting from the small occupiers." (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885 [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1915], 149.) 79 "The bill as it went into committee included no lodger franchise. . . . The Act enfranchised all £10 lodgers in parliamentary boroughs. The county occupation franchise in the bill began at £15 p.a. In the Act it was lowered to £ 12 and supplemented by a £5 franchise for copyholders. The period of qualifying residence was two years in the bill, one in the Act. The provision to allow voters to vote by voting papers, which was included in the bill, was removed by the time it was passed." (Cowling, 7567,223.) 78

xxxvi

Introduction

leadership and the amendment went down by a vote of 310 to 289. Suspecting that, although he would do no business with Gladstone, Disraeli would find it necessary to do business with them, these Radicals put the survival of the Bill before a parliamentary victory for Gladstone. In his diary Gladstone recorded: "A smash perhaps without example."80 Mill voted with the minority.81 Mill's sole major speech on the ratepaying issue was delivered in the debate that saw Gladstone empty his barrels in a final attempt to wound the measure fatally. On 6 May Disraeli informed the House that the government could not accept the amendment of J.T. Hibbert, Radical M.P. for Oldham, that would allow compounders who wished to opt out of composition to pay a reduced rate. Instead, he indicated, the government would offer an amendment providing that the full rate would have to be paid by those opting out of composition, but that amount could be deducted from the rent received by their landlords. If defeated on the amendment, Disraeli announced, the government would dissolve. Gladstone took up the challenge and advised the House to reject Disraeli's amendment. That advice was not heeded by fifty-eight Liberals who voted with the government, which sailed through the division with a majority of sixty-six.82 A correct deciphering of Mill's speech of 9 May hinges on an understanding of what was at stake in this debate. The Tory Bill had sent tremors through Liberal ranks, as Derby and Disraeli had intended that it should. Mill vehemently criticized Disraeli for politicizing the ratepaying issue and sponsoring an amendment calculated to increase electoral corruption. But Mill's words were directed less at the government than at the Radicals. "I hope that honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House, who, loving household suffrage not wisely but too well, have brought matters to this state, intend to come down handsomely to the registration societies in their own neighbourhoods; for the registration societies are destined henceforth to be one of the great institutions of the country" (147). Shortly thereafter Mill warned those Radicals who had shown a tendency to act on the supposition that more of what they wanted could be had from Disraeli than from Gladstone that they would pay a heavy price at the polls (monetarily and politically) for their determination "to outwit the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and make his Bill bring forth pure and simple household suffrage, contrary to the intentions of everybody except themselves who will vote for it" (147). These sentiments did not originate in a conviction that household suffrage was a bad idea. Mill wanted his free-wheeling Radical colleagues to realize they were gambling on getting a form of household suffrage they could live with. More importantly, he wanted them to understand that purchasing any bill of goods from Disraeli at Gladstone's political expense could severely damage the prospects for the formation of an effective advanced Liberal party. 80

Gladstone Diaries, VI, 513. For the division, seePD, 3rd set., Vol. 186, col. 1700 (12 Apr., 1867). 82 Cowling, 1867,269-71.

81

Introduction

xxxvii

Disraeli had managed to put Gladstone on the defensive. The stepped-up pace of the agitation out of doors may for a time have had a similar effect. In 1866 the leaders of the League might have thought a £7 franchise bill from Gladstone preferable to anything the Tories were likely to offer. By April of 1867 they could not be so sure. Frances Gillespie notes that in this month the League "utterly denounced" Gladstone's proposal of a £5 rating franchise.83 On 6 May the League defied the government and held a demonstration in Hyde Park. Feelings were running high inside and outside the House. Gladstone could make no overt move towards the League. Mill had to take up ground distinct from that occupied by the League while doing everything possible to convince its supporters that Gladstone was the man to whom they must turn for leadership. Gladstone made that task somewhat easier after the defeat of 9 May. His "reaction to this second defeat," Cowling observes, "was to abandon the £5 rating line altogether . . . and to deliver a sarcastic address to the Reform Union on 11 May in which he attacked the Adullamite Whigs for the first time in public .. . and went as near as a responsible politician could to committing himself as soon as he returned to office to reject the personal payment principle."84 On 17 May Disraeli made his stunning announcement to the House that the government intended to accept the principle of Grosvenor Hodgkinson's amendment for the abolition of compounding. The amendment was not incompatible with Disraeli's insistence on retaining the ratepaying principle, but its acceptance swept away the restrictive effects of the Bill's distinction between direct ratepayers and compounders. The fuss that ensued, in which Mill took part (see Nos. 54, 58, 59), focused on the procedure by which the abolition of compounding was to be implemented.85 Disraeli's bravura performance on 17 May obviated Radical obstruction and ensured the passage of the Bill. Once again he had caught Gladstone off guard and made it appear that the House could carry on very well without Gladstone's assistance. In his speech to a London meeting of the Reform Union on 25 May, Mill tried to counteract this impression by emphasizing who had done what for whom in 1866 and 1867. He complained of the government's unfair treatment of the compounder and suggested that Disraeli had been consistent only in his unwillingness to play straight. This is very like all that has been going on ever since the beginning of these reform discussions. It has been a succession—I will not say of tricks, because I do not like to use hard words, especially when I cannot prove them, but of what is called in the vernacular, trying it on. The object is just to see what you will bear, and anything that you will bear you 83

Labor and Politics, 278n. 1867, 272. In the end the 1867 Act abolished composition in parliamentary boroughs. The confusion and inconvenience caused by the change, however, led to the passage in 1869 of a measure (32 & 33 Victoria, c. 41) that reinstated composition and also provided that compound occupiers have their names recorded in the rate-book. 84

85

xxxviii

Introduction

shall have to bear, but if you show that you will not bear it, then perhaps it may not be required of you. (169.)

No better could perhaps be expected of Disraeli; but Mill thought it vital that he not be rewarded for a technique designed to conceal the identity of the real author of reform. Reformers should have no patience for the leader of the House of Commons when he gibes at those to whom we really owe all this, when he .... . talks of their "blundering hands," and gives it to be understood that they have not been able to carry reform and he can, and that it is not their measure. He is quite satisfied if he can say to Mr. Gladstone, "You did not do it." But Mr. Gladstone did do it. He could not carry his measure last year because Mr. Disraeli and his friends opposed it; Mr. Disraeli can carry his Reform Bill because Mr. Gladstone will not oppose anything but that which is not real reform, and will support to the utmost that which is. I have no objection to thank everybody for their part in it when once we have got it, but I will always thank most those to whom we really owe it. The people of England know that but for the late government this government would have gone one hundred miles out of their way before they would have brought in any Reform Bill at all. And every good thing we have got in this bill, even that which seems to be more than Mr. Gladstone was prepared to give, has only been given for the purpose of outbidding Mr. Gladstone. (170-1.)

Ideas and ideals were central to Mill's liberalism, but politics was an indispensable medium for their having practical effect. The Liberal party was important to Mill for what it could become. Its development in a direction consonant with his objectives required, he believed, both a leadership dominated by Gladstone and an active influential rank and file with a strong working-class contingent. His response to the reform crisis of 1866-67 followed from this conviction. Mill, disappointed by the fortunes of radicalism at the 1868 general election, gave scant indication in the Autobiography of the motives that governed his general political disposition in 1867. There he writes not of party political purposes but of independent advocacy of fundamental principles concerning women's suffrage and the representation of minorities. "In the general debates on Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill, my participation was limited to the one speech [on 9 May] already mentioned; but I made the Bill an occasion for bringing the two greatest improvements which remain to be made in representative government formally before the House and the nation."86 Mill invariably stressed the non-party character of these initiatives, but the "occasion" for bringing them forward was coloured by party considerations. On 7 June 1866, he presented to the House a women's suffrage petition signed by 1521 women. He also gave notice of a motion for a return of the number of women who met the existing property qualifications but were barred from the vote by reason of their sex.87 Mill had no 86

A, 284. Mill put this motion on 17 July; see No. 25.

87

Introduction

xxxix

intention of pressing the issue beyond this point in the 1866 session, explaining to a fellow M.P. (C.D. Griffith) that "there is no chance that we can succeed in getting a clause for admitting women to the suffrage introduced with the present Reform Bill." The object was "merely to open the subject this year, without taking up the time of the House and increasing the accusation of obstructiveness by forcing on a discussion which cannot lead to a practical result. "88 Had the Reform Bill of 1866 carried it is possible that Mill would never have proposed the enfranchisement of women in the House of Commons ("perhaps the only really important public service I performed in the capacity of a Member of Parliament").89 Much the same can be said of the personal representation amendment. In November of 1866 Mill wrote to Hare: There will, in all probability, be a Tory Reform Bill, and whatever may be its quality, no moving of amendments or raising of new points will in the case of a Tory bill be regarded by Liberals as obstructiveness, or as damaging to the cause. Then will be the very time to bring forward and get discussed, everything which we think ought to be put into a good Reform Bill.90

JAMAICA AND IRELAND NO ONE was obliged to treat seriously Mill's views on women's suffrage and personal representation. Those who disliked such opinions could regard their propagation as foolish but not as dangerous. For the trouble he took on these matters he may have attracted the admiration of some, the derision of others. Few politicians would care to have the measure of their power taken by reference to either the esteem they inspire or the ridicule they provoke. Whatever political power Mill commanded was inseparable from the intellectual and moral authority he could bring to bear on issues that the governing classes could not easily shrug off. Jamaica and Ireland were such issues, and the high moral line Mill adopted on both is well known.91 But his course of action on these questions too was not unaffected by his sensitivity to party and personal struggles, and to their possible implications for the future of Gladstone and the Liberal party. On no subject that he addressed during his Westminster years did Mill feel more strongly than that of the conduct of Governor Eyre and the Jamaican authorities in October of 1865, following the uprising at Morant Bay.92 The intensity of Mill's 88

LL, CW, XVI, 1175 (9 June, 1866). A, 285. LL, CW, XVI, 1215 (18 Nov., 1866).

89

90

91 SeeA, 280-2; Bernard Semmel, The Governor Eyre Controversy (London: Macgibbon and Lee, 1962), esp. Chap, iii; Lynn Zastoupil, "Moral Government: J.S. Mill on Ireland,"Historical Journal, XXVI (1983), 707-17. 92 For a good general treatment of the Jamaican background, see W.P. Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Mid-Victorian Age: South Africa, New Zealand, and the West Indies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 399-432.

xl

Introduction

reaction to the reports from Jamaica and his assumption that consideration of Eyre's behaviour did not lie beyond the parliamentary pale were evident as early as December, when he wrote to a correspondent: "There seems likely to be enough doing in Parliament, this session, to occupy all one's thoughts. There is no part of it all, not even the Reform Bill, more important than the duty of dealing justly with the abominations committed in Jamaica."93 When Mill took his seat in February the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the Jamaica troubles had not completed its work. The ministry, preoccupied with the Reform Bill, hoped that all parties, including the anti-Eyre Jamaica Committee, of which Mill was a prominent member, would hold their fire until the Commission had reported.94 It is perhaps not surprising that Mill kept himself in check while the Commission took evidence and deliberated, even though he seems to have already made up his mind that Eyre was responsible for the terrible things that had been done and that the rule of law demanded he be punished accordingly. When the Report reached London on 30 April, its content did nothing to soften Mill's view of Eyre.95 His self-imposed silence on the subject for nearly three months after the Report became public was probably dictated by his resolution that Gladstone's friends should refrain from aggravating in any way their leader's formidable difficulties in the House of Commons.96 With the defeat of the Reform Bill and the fall of Russell and Gladstone, Mill's role in the anti-Eyre movement was transformed. At the end of June Charles Buxton resigned as Chairman of the Jamaica Committee, having vainly argued that the Committee should not attempt to prosecute Eyre for murder. The burden of Buxton's case was that conviction was highly improbable and, if obtained, would be followed by a royal pardon. While prosecution could produce but meagre results, it would alienate public opinion, which would come to see Eyre as a dutiful servant of the crown, hounded by a vindictive group who failed to appreciate the heavy responsibility borne by the governor of an island whose predominantly black population could present a grave threat to the life and property of the white minority. The Jamaica Committee, Buxton urged, would best serve the interests of the victims and the cause of justice by working to secure an official condemnation 93

To William Eraser Rae, LL, CW, XVI, 1126 (14 Dec., 1865). Two weeks later he observed to Henry Fawcett: "The two great topics of the year will be Jamaica and Reform, and there will be an immensity to be said and done on both subjects" (ibid., 1131 [1 Jan., 1866]). 94 For a valuable discussion of the governmental response to the Eyre difficulties, see B.A. Knox, "The British Government and the Governor Eyre Controversy, 1865-1875," Historical Journal, XIX (1976), 877-900. 95 Among its other findings the Commission concluded that "the punishment of death was unnecessarily frequent"; "the floggings were reckless, and at Bath positively barbarous"; "the burning of 1,000 houses was wanton and cruel." For these findings, see "Report of the Jamaica Royal Commission,"PP, 1866, XXX, 489-531. 96 If Mill assumed that Gladstone was deeply disturbed by what had occurred in Jamaica he was right. Knox has noted that "Gladstone leaned towards a sterner view of Eyre's conduct than did his colleagues" ("The British Government and the Governor Eyre Controversy," 880).

Introduction

xli

of Eyre and those who had used the declaration and continuance of martial law to inflict unwarrantable and cruel suffering on thousands of British subjects. That condemnation could form the basis of a campaign to win financial compensation for the victims and their families.97 Mill and Bright (also a member of the executive committee) held that the course Buxton saw as impolitic offered the only means by which the principles of law, morality, and justice could be vindicated. Eyre's removal from the governorship (he had been temporarily superseded in January of 1866 and his successor would be commissioned in July) fell far short of what was required. Compensation for victims should be sought, but such compensation could not restore the moral authority of British imperial government. If the government refused to prosecute, then the Committee must, as was explained to the public in a document issued by the Committee not long after Buxton's resignation as Chairman. In undertaking to discharge this duty, so far as circumstances and the means at their disposal may permit, the Committee are n o t . . . activated by vindictive feelings towards those whom they believe to have violated the law. Their aim, besides upholding the obligation of justice and humanity towards all races beneath the Queen's sway, is to vindicate, by an appeal to judicial authority, the great legal and constitutional principles which have been violated in the late proceedings, and deserted by the Government.98

Mill and Bright carried the executive with them on 26 June. On 9 July Mill was elected to replace Buxton." Ten days later Mill put his Jamaica questions to the government in the House of Commons. 100 On 31 July he delivered his single major speech (No. 33) on the subject in the debate occasioned by the introduction of four resolutions by Buxton.101 Mill could hardly have acted as he did on the Jamaica question in July had the fragile Russell-Gladstone government still been in office. Certainly the object in pressing the issue was to rescue England's moral reputation, not to irritate the Conservative ministry. The fact remains that however strongly Mill felt about the matter, he abstained during the first half of the year from venting his feelings in the 97

See Semmel, Governor Eyre Controversy, 68-9. "Jamaica Documents," in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, CW, XXI (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 423. "For a report of the meeting at which he was elected, see The Times, 10 July, 1866, 5. 100 Disraeli insisted that Mill state in full each of the questions, into which were built allegations the justification of which Mill seemed to take for granted. Disraeli's masterful response charged Mill with having assumed guilt where none had yet been legally established. He also made it clear that the government had no intention of taking any further action against Eyre. For Disraeli's speech of 19 July, 1866, seePD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1064-9. 101 The first of Buxton's resolutions, which the government agreed to accept on the understanding that he would withdraw the other three, deplored the excessive punishments inflicted in Jamaica. The second asked that the conduct of military, naval, and colonial officers responsible for such excesses "be inquired into with a view to their punishment." The third concerned compensation for victims or their families, and the last the treatment of Jamaicans held in connection with the disturbances. For the motion and the debate, see ibid., cols. 1763-1840. In the Autobiography Mill says that his Jamaica speech "is that which I should probably select as the best of my speeches in Parliament" (A, 281). 98

xlii

Introduction

House of Commons. Had a perfectly secure Liberal government been in office he surely would not have held back. The spectacle of a vulnerable Gladstone harassed by anti-reform forces persuaded Mill that the assertion of principles dear to him had to be subordinated, at least momentarily, to political exigencies. The Eyre question never acquired a significant parliamentary status.102 Irish subjects, especially the land question, had such a status and Mill came to think that he had an important role to play in making England aware of the remedies appropriate to Irish problems. Very soon after first taking his seat in the House of Commons Mill spoke on the suspension of habeas corpus in Ireland (February 1866). He did not offer remedies on this occasion; instead he made very plain his belief that England had abysmally failed to reconcile Ireland to British rule. Mill's words did not sit well with the House.103 His general condemnation of English government in Ireland, however, 102 No government, Liberal or Tory, would have been prepared to act upon the recommendations of the Jamaica Committee. No criminal convictions followed from the prosecutions launched by the Committee. As Buxton had feared, the policy pushed by Mill aroused sympathy for Eyre, led to the formation of the Eyre Defence Committee, and engendered a good deal of hostility towards members of the Jamaica Committee, Mill included. He had no regrets, observing in the Autobiography, "we had given an emphatic warning to those who might be tempted to similar guilt hereafter, that though they might escape the actual sentence of a criminal tribunal, they were not safe against being put to some trouble and expense in order to avoid it. Colonial Governors and other persons in authority will have a considerable motive to stop short of such extremities in future." (Ibid., 282.) 103 Particular exception, it seems, was taken to the following: "Every foreigner, every continental writer, would believe for many years to come that Ireland was a country constantly on the brink of revolution, held down by an alien nationality, and kept in subjection by brute force" (53). Mill alludes to the occasion in the Autobiography. "I did no more than the general opinion of England now admits to have been just; but the anger against Fenianism was then in all its freshness; any attack on what Fenians attacked was looked upon as an apology for them; and I was so unfavourably received by the House, that more than one of my friends advised me (and my own judgment agreed with the advice) to wait, before speaking again, for the favourable opportunity that would be given by the first great debate on the Reform Bill" (A, 277). The third reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill passed the House of Commons by a vote of 354 to 6. Mill abstained. Among those urging Mill, after the habeas corpus debate, to hold his tongue until the second reading of the Reform Bill was J.A. Roebuck. No longer the friend he had once been, Roebuck "did not presume to address him directly," but instead went through Chadwick. Roebuck, always ready to speak his mind, plainly stated that the debate on the Reform Bill should have been the occasion for Mill's "debut." Whatever mistakes Mill might have made in February, the opportunity to establish himself as a force in the House had not been conclusively lost. All would depend on his Reform Bill speech. "Having determined what to say, he ought to plant himself steadily on his feet, give the right pitch & tone of voice, then earnestly and with perfect simplicity, make his opening statement. The House will be anxious to hear him—Let him shew, that he is no mere puppet, that he is no man's follower—but one possessed of strong opinions—well thought opinions—and really anxious to have those opinions fairly & honestly laid before his country. . . . Let him give all the body he can to his voice. He should above all things be manly, quiet [?], self-possessed & earnest. ... I know that he is able to teach the House, but he must not appear to be a teacher. He ought to seem merely desirous of laying his whole heart before the House, honestly, fearlessly & in all sincerity. If he follows these badly expressed counsels, he will succeed." (9 Mar., 1866, Mill Collection, Yale University Library.) That Roebuck felt such advice was called for suggests that Mill had gotten off to a shaky start. The word going around in late February of 1866, according to William White, Door-Keeper of the House of Commons, was "failure." From this judgment White dissented. "To ascertain whether a man is a

Introduction

xliii

did not translate into a criticism of the particular Liberal ministry then in office. That suspension of habeas corpus should be necessary pointed up the inadequacy of what had hitherto been done for Ireland, but Mill did not question the necessity. A notable feature of the speech is his separation of Russell and Gladstone from the causes that had brought Ireland to the edge of rebellion. He was not prepared to vote against granting to Her Majesty's Government the powers which, in the state to which Ireland had been brought, they declared to be absolutely necessary. . . . They did not bring Ireland into its present state—they found it so, through the misgovernment of centuries and the neglect of half a century. [Such words gave Gladstone more cover than they did Russell. ] He did not agree with his honourable Friend the Member for Birmingham [Bright] in thinking that Her Majesty's Ministers, if they could not devise some remedy for the evils of Ireland, were bound to leave their seats on the Treasury Bench and devote themselves to learning statesmanship. From whom were they to learn it? From the Gentlemen opposite, who would be their successors, and who, if they were to propose anything which his honourable Friend or himself would consider as remedies for Irish evils, would not allow them to pass it? (53.) If Mill's tolerance stretched so far as to accommodate Jamaica during the first half of 1866, it would not snap over Ireland. Mill's solicitude for the beleaguered Russell-Gladstone ministry is evident in his speech on the government's 1866 Irish Land Bill. Introduced on 30 April by Chichester Fortescue,104 Irish Chief Secretary, this "extremely mild measure"105 proposed to invest Irish tenants with a legal claim to compensation for failure we must ascertain what he aims at. Mr. Mill never thought to startle and dazzle the House by his oratory, as Disraeli did when he first rose to speak. Mr. Mill has no oratorical gifts, and he knows it. Nor can he be called a rhetorician. He is a close reasoner, and addresses himself directly to our reasoning powers; and though he has great command of language, as all his hearers know, he never condescends to deck out his arguments in rhetorical finery to catch applause. His object is to convey his thoughts directly to the hearer's mind, and to do this he uses the clearest medium—not coloured glass, but the best polished plate, because through that objects may be best seen. . . . What Mr. Mill intended to do was to reason calmly with his opponents, and this he succeeded in doing. ... He has not a powerful voice, but then it is highly pitched and very clear; and this class of voice goes much further than one of lower tone—as the ear-piercing fife is heard at a greater distance than the blatant trombone. The giant, then, is not a failure; no, except in the eyes of the pigmies." (William White, The Inner Life of theHouse of Commons, 2 vols. [1897] [Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1970], II, 31-3.) White and Roebuck agreed on the quality and impact of Mill's Reform Bill speech on 13 April. The former confessed that it was not in his power to give "an adequate description of Mr. Mill' s great reform speech." He considered it "something entirely new in the debates of the House. Search Hansard from the time that record first began, and you will find nothing like it for purity of style and closeness of reasoning; and, secondly, as we venture to think, nothing like it for the effect it produced upon the House. . . . When Mr. Mill sat down the House cleared. As the Liberal members passed the gangway, not a few stepped out of their way to thank Mr. Mill." (Ibid., 42-3.) Roebuck was no less impressed. Writing to Chadwick on the day after Mill's speech, he described it as "the outpouring of a great, honest, yet modest mind; the vigorous expression of well-considered & accurate thought." The speech, "an epoch in parliamentary oratory," had "settled for sure the position Mill is to hold in the House & I believe lays open to him the highest offices in the administration of the country" (14 Apr., 1866, Mill Collection, Yale University Library). 104 See PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 214-22. 105

A, 279.

xliv

Introduction

improvements in those cases where there existed no written contract between landlord and tenant denying the latter's right to such compensation.106 On the second reading of the Bill Mill "delivered one of [his] most careful speeches... in a manner calculated less to stimulate friends, than to conciliate and convince opponents."107 Mill's opponents could be forgiven for wondering what it was he was trying to convince them of in this speech of 17 May. He began with an assertion that may have inadvertently done Gladstone and Fortescue more harm than good. "I venture to express the opinion that nothing which any Government has yet done, or which any Government has yet attempted to do, for Ireland . . . has shown so true a comprehension of Ireland's real needs, or has aimed so straight at the very heart of Ireland's discontent and of Ireland's misery" (75). Such an endorsement from Mill of an Irish land scheme in a House of Commons that had its full complement of landlords was something the Liberal government might have preferred to manage without. Nonetheless, Mill meant to do well by the government and that intention gave rise to a very curious speech on a Bill whose place in the history of the Irish land question is deservedly obscure. Two themes uneasily cohabit in Mill's speech. The first concerns the need for English legislators to think seriously about whether Ireland could be best governed according to English principles. Mill argued that Irish conditions resembled those on the Continent and that English assumptions concerning the ordering of agricultural society were unorthodox. "Irish circumstances and Irish ideas as to social and agricultural economy are the general ideas and circumstances of the human race; it is English circumstances and English ideas that are peculiar" (76). Continental experience had shown that where the tenant was also the cultivator of the soil his welfare depended on his having "the protection of some sort of fixed usage. The custom of the country has determined more or less precisely the rent which he should pay, and guaranteed the permanence of his tenure as long as he paid it." (77.) But if Mill seemed to be saying that Irish tenants should be given fixity of tenure, that is not what he proceeded to advocate. Instead, and here emerges the second theme, Mill defended the ministerial measure on the premise that it would contribute to achieving the aim supported by the English governing class: the promotion of the English system of agriculture in Ireland. Such a goal, whose wisdom Mill openly questioned, entailed making prosperous farmers of the most capable of the Irish tenantry. Indispensable to this process was the provision 106

The government hoped the Bill would encourage improvements and discourage evictions. A,, 279. For the background to Mill's involvement with the Irish land question, see T.A. Boylan and T.P. Foley, "John Elliot Cairnes, John Stuart Mill and Ireland: Some Problems for Political Economy," Hermathena, CXXXV (1983), 96-119; Bruce L. Kinzer, "J.S. Mill and Irish Land: A Reassessment," Historical Journal, XXVII (1984), 111-27; E.D. Steele, "J.S. Mill and the Irish Question: The Principles of Political Economy, 1848-1865," ibid., XIII (1970), 216-36; and Zastoupil, "Moral Government." 101

Introduction

xlv

of compensation for improvements, without which tenants would lack the incentive to act the part of Anglicized tenant farmers. Mill knew the House of Commons would not sanction fixity of tenure and he had to admit that he knew it. He could not remain silent when the opportunity arose to tell the House that Ireland needed fixity of tenure. He would not, however, use the occasion to criticize the government's feeble proposal. On the contrary he would bestow extravagant praise upon its authors. His admission that fixity of tenure would not fly in the House served to justify a course of action consistent with an allegiance to political ends that could not be dissociated from the fate of Gladstone.108 Towards the end of 1867 Mill concluded that the time for pulling his punches had passed. The Fenian outbursts in Ireland and England in 1867 convinced him that England could not and should not keep Ireland unless she could furnish a satisfactory settlement of the land question. In his pamphlet England and Ireland, published in early 1868, Mill eloquently and trenchantly pleaded the case for fixity of tenure.109 Dr. Steele has documented the hostile reception given this pamphlet and has argued that Mill, realizing that he had gone too far, retreated from his exposed position on 12 March in his speech on the state of Ireland.110 Mill's speech reads differently from his pamphlet but the difference does not come from his having had second thoughts about fixity of tenure for Irish tenants. Rather it arises from the distinct roles Mill assigned the pamphlet and the speech in his campaign. The scheme he proposed in England and Ireland was deliberately presented simply, boldly, directly. Mill wanted to get people's attention—the 108 The constraints affecting Mill at this time were evident in connection with another dimension of the Irish question that deeply concerned him: Irish universities. Mill was anxious to see preserved the non-denominational integrity of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland that together made up the Queen's University. Every encouragement should be given to bringing "youths of different religions to live together in colleges" (letter to Cairnes, LL, CW, XVI, 1134 [6 Jan., 1866]). Just before leaving office Russell's government issued a supplemental charter to the Queen's University, which was empowered to set matriculation examinations independent of those held at the Queen's Colleges and to award degrees to suitably qualified candidates who had not studied in any of those Colleges. Mill's unhappiness at this development was pronounced. Writing to Cairnes on 3 July he declared: "We, who were holding back on account of the Reform Bill, certainly were led to expect a further notice [before the issuing of the supplemental charter]: otherwise we should have brought the matter before the House at once, which would have been very disagreeable to the Govt." (ibid., 1178). Sir Robert Peel, a member of the Queen's University Senate and son of the Prime Minister who had established the Queen's Colleges, was determined to fight the implementation of the supplemental charter. Mill was ready to do what he could to support Peel's effort but he did not want to be "the prominent person in a move which is very likely to break up the alliance between the Irish Catholics and the English Liberals, and perhaps keep the Tories in office for years" (ibid., 1184 [15 July, 1866]). See Bruce L. Kinzer, "John Stuart Mill and the Irish University Question," Victorian Studies, XXXI (1987), 59-77. l09 England and Ireland, in Essays on England, Ireland, and the Empire, CW, VI (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 505-32. For differing perspectives on the significance of England and Ireland, see E.D. Steele, "J.S. Mill and the Irish Question: Reform and the Integrity of the Empire, 1865-1870," Historical Journal, XIII (1970), 419-50; and Kinzer, "J.S. Mill and Irish Land," 121-7. 110 Steele, "Reform and the Integrity of the Empire," 437-48.

xlvi

Introduction

fleshing out of details belonged to a later stage. The primary function of the speech was to answer the criticisms and misapprehensions the pamphlet had incited, and to emphasize the flexible application to which its principle was subject. The relation of the pamphlet to the speech was plainly laid out by Mill in a letter to Cairnes, written only hours before the opening of the debate on Ireland. "The object [of England and Ireland] was to strike hard, and compel people to listen to the largest possible proposal. This has been accomplished, and now the time is come for discussing in detail the manner in which the plan, if adopted, would work."111 The generally conciliatory tone of the speech does not represent any backtracking on Mill's part. He did not hesitate to announce to the House that "Great and obstinate evils require great remedies" (249), nor did he decline the opportunity to reiterate his defence of peasant proprietorship (259-61). Before March of 1868 Gladstone's political star, apparently on the descent during the Reform Bill struggle, had begun to regain altitude in a climb that by December would carry him to the premiership with a large majority at his back. At Christmas 1867 Lord Russell resigned the leadership of the party, and Gladstone succeeded to a position that conferred on him an authority he had hitherto been denied. The dissension caused by the controversy over reform had largely dissipated and the prospect of a general election provided ample incentive for the party to put its house in order and unite behind a strong leader. Gladstone was ready to provide that leadership. In February of 1868 he introduced his Bill for the abolition of compulsory church rates, which would not long thereafter become law. Four days after Mill spoke on Irish land, Gladstone committed himself in the House to Irish Church disestablishment, which he made the subject of the resolutions he proposed on 23 March. His grip on the party, so unsure in 1866 and 1867, had tightened noticeably. Mill no longer had to tread softly for Gladstone's sake. Indeed, Mill's shift into high gear on the Irish land question reflected his understanding that Gladstone's growing strength had opened up a fast lane to the leader's left. In the drive towards a Liberalism more programmatic than anything yet seen, Mill attempted to set a pace that he hoped would keep him within Gladstone's sight while helping the latter gain acceptance for measures that would have horrified Palmerston. Mill's lunge on Irish land did something to make the question ripe for serious legislation and also enlarged the framework of debate. That Gladstone got as much as he did on Irish land in 1870 (he did not get all that he wanted)112 owed a little (maybe more) to England and Ireland. Mill may have had less reason than Gladstone to applaud the legislation of 1870, but he had known better than to entertain expectations incapable of immediate fulfilment. As he told Cairnes in March of 1868: "I do not share your hopes that anything much short of what I have 111

LL,CW, XVI, 1373 (10 Mar., 1868) For the making of the 1870 Irish Land Act, see E.D. Steele's excellent study, Irish Land and British Politics: Tenant-Right and Nationality, 1865-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). 112

Introduction

xlvii

proposed, would give peace or prosperity to Ireland in union with England: but if there is any intermediate course which would do so, its adoption is likely to be very much promoted by frightening the Government and the landlords with something more revolutionary."113 CORRUPT PRACTICES THE IRISH LAND QUESTION, however important to Mill in 1868, was overshadowed by his immersion in the issue of corrupt electoral practices. Disraeli had promised a bill on the subject for 1868.114 The depth of Mill's detailed involvement with this measure exceeded that of any other he encountered during his years in Parliament. Believing that a number of advanced Liberals shared his interest, he was disposed to assume responsibility for directing and coordinating their strategy and tactics. In November of 1867 he wrote to Chadwick: The great question of next session will be the promised bill against electoral corruption. The advanced Liberals must have their rival bill, and I am anxious that all who have thought on the subject. . . should put down, as heads of a bill, all that has occurred to them as desirable on this subject. When all suggestions have been got together, the most feasible may be selected, and the best radicals in and out of the House may be urged to combine in forcing them on the government.115

Later that month Mill was in touch with W.D. Christie, whom he considered the leading authority on the subject.116 He asked Christie to draw up a measure that could serve as an instrument of discussion for advanced Liberals, who might meet on the reassembling of Parliament "and produce an outline of a Bill which might be circulated among the Liberal party. It might be possible to prevail on Mr. Gladstone to introduce it: b u t . . . the bill will only be a rallying point: the fight will . ... on the attempt to engraft its provisions on the bill of the Tory ... be Government."117 In late December Mill, having heard from Christie, clearly felt the time had come to talk about details. The major points Christie wished to press concerned the inclusion of municipal elections within the bill's purview and the desirability of conducting a post-election enquiry into all contests regardless of whether or not a 113

LL, CW, XVI, 1373 (10 Mar., 1868). The Conservative government had actually introduced a bill on the subject in 1867, which had been referred to a select committee of the House. It was, however, withdrawn on 29 July, and on 16 August Disraeli informed the House of the government's intention to deal with the matter early in the following session. SeePD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, col. 1606. 115 LL, CW, XVI, 1325 (4 Nov., 1867). 116 In February of 1864 Christie had read a paper, "Suggestions for an Organization for the Restraint of Corruption at Elections" before the Jurisprudence Department of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science. Less than two months later Mill attended a meeting of the Law Amendment Society, at which Christie's paper "Corruption at Elections" was discussed. For Mill's brief remarks on this occasion, see No. 3. 117 Letter to William Dougal Christie, LL, CW, XVI, 1331 (20 Nov., 1867). 114

xlviii

Introduction

complaint had been lodged. Mill agreed that corruption at parliamentary elections often fed off the unsavoury techniques used at the municipal level and that any bill that did not apply to both would be highly unsatisfactory. As for a uniform and comprehensive enquiry process, Mill admitted the idea was new to him. "One can at once see many reasons in its favour, but it will be a difficult thing to get carried, owing to the habitual objection to 'fishing' enquiries, and to enquiries when there is no complaint. It is, however, evident that the absence of complaint is, in such a case, no evidence of the absence of mischief." Mill also raised other questions with Christie at this time: what punishment should be imposed on the convicted briber? should all money spent by candidates and their agents at elections "pass through a public officer, so that the mere fact of incurring expenditure in which he is passed over should be legal proof of an unlawful purpose?"118 At the beginning of the new year Mill received and read Christie's pamphlet Election Corruption and Its Remedies (1867), whose recommendations he considered "excellent." Of these Mill deemed Christie's proposal for the appointment of an official in each constituency to supervise all aspects of the local electoral process to be of central importance.119 On 17 January Christie learned of Mill's preference for his plan "of an investigation after every election, parliamentary or municipal, by a special officer, with the addition of an appeal from that officer to one of the Judges."120 Disraeli, unlike Mill, did not look to Christie for instruction on this matter. The key question addressed by the government's Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill concerned jurisdiction over controverted elections.121 The measure proposed to transfer jurisdiction from Election Committees of the House of Commons to a judicial tribunal.122 What little opposition there was to the principle of the Bill was not party motivated. Gladstone accepted the need for such a change and did not take a leading part in the debates. Mill himself endorsed the measure, declaring that "though it does in reality only one thing, that thing is a vigorous one, and shows an adequate sense of the emergency" (262). Mill had no wish to see the Bill defeated; rather, he sought to expand its scope so that it could be made into a powerful weapon in the fight against the corrupt influence of money at elections. The campaign organized by Mill secured none of its objectives.123 Nothing could be done to establish the enquiry mechanism urged by Christie. The Act of 118

Ibid., 1337 (28 Dec., 1867). 119lbid., 1348 (8 Jan., 1868). 120 lbid., 1353.

121 Cornelius O'Leary provides a good account of the Bill and its passage in The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections, 1868-1911 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 27-43. 122 The Act provided that the judges of each of the three superior courts at Westminster annually select one of their members to try election petitions. 123 Mill's correspondence during the first half of 1868 testifies to his vigilance on behalf of the cause. See his letters to Christie: LL,CW, XVI, 1381-2(31 Mar.), 1383-4(3 Apr.), 1397 (8May), 1398(11 May), 1399-1400 (20 May), 1403 (25 May), 1409 (6 June), and 1425 (27 July).

Introduction

xlix

1868 did not prohibit paid canvassers or limit each candidate to one paid agent; it did not apply to municipal elections; it did not transfer official election expenses from the candidates to the rates, an alteration advocated by Mill in Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform and in Representative Government.l24 The account of this episode in the Autobiography, no doubt coloured by Mill's experience of the general election of 1868, carries the full weight of his disappointment. Referring to the "fight kept up by a body of advanced Liberals," he blames the Liberal party for the futility to which that fight was condemned. The Liberal party in the House was greatly dishonoured by the conduct of many of its members in giving no help whatever to this attempt to secure the necessary conditions of an honest representation of the people. With their large majority in the House they could have carried all the amendments, or better ones if they had better to propose. But it was late in the Session; members were eager to set about their preparations for the impending General Election: and while some . . . honourably remained at their p o s t . . . a much greater number placed their electioneering interests before their public duty. .. . From these causes our fight . . . was wholly unsuccessful, and the practices which we sought to render more difficult, prevailed more widely than ever in the first General Election held under the new electoral law.125

Implicit in the passage is a criticism of Gladstone's leadership, the quality of which Mill would do nothing to impugn during 1868. That Mill should seek to strike a blow for purity of election can surprise no one; that he should identify the cause so exclusively with a group of advanced Liberals reveals something of his underlying hopes for political realignment. A less narrow identification could have been made. Radicals may have been the most aggressive advocates of a systematic attack on corrupt practices but such advocacy was not confined to them. Beresford-Hope, a Tory, proposed an amendment to forbid the use of public houses as committee rooms. The Saturday Review, not known to sympathize with advanced Liberalism, expressed regret that the Bill did not go further. "The truth is that the Government Bill is only a half-measure. The whole of our election system requires overhauling. It is better to do what is proposed than to do nothing, but far more will yet have to be done before we have exhausted all reasonable legal efforts to put down or to detect bribery. "126 The Times, not one of Mill's favourite newspapers, could write that "the great increase in the number of the moneyed class is as threatening a spring of danger as the adoption of Household Suffrage."127 There could be an aristocratic as well as a democratic bias against money at elections. Mill's was emphatically of the latter sort. In Considerations on Representative Government he had written: 124 CW, XIX, 320, 496. Henry Fawcett's amendment for placing official election expenses on the rates was actually carried in a small House by a vote of 84 to 76. On the third reading, however, the government managed to reverse that decision, defeating Fawcett's amendment 102 to 91. 125 A, 283-4. 126 Quoted in O'Leary, Elimination of Corrupt Practices, 39n-40n.

127

Quoted/toW.,38.

1

Introduction

There has never yet been, among political men, any real and serious attempt to prevent bribery, because there has been no real desire that elections should not be costly. Their costliness is an advantage to those who can afford the expense, by excluding a multitude of competitors; and anything, however noxious, is cherished as having a conservative tendency, if it limits the access to Parliament to rich men. .. . They care comparatively little who votes, as long as they feel assured that none but persons of their own class can be voted for.128

Mill's objection to the Palmerstonian ascendancy was that it seemed impervious to politics as he understood the term. Palmerston's House of Commons was a club of complacent comfortable gentlemen who felt strongly only about preserving an order of things that they found highly congenial. The broad appeal of the Palmerstonian Liberal party emanated from its standing for an ill-defined "progress" in general and nothing very much in particular. Politics without principles might serve nicely the interests of the rich but could not foster the social and moral improvement that Mill prized. The transformation of the Liberal party into a vehicle of radical reform was vital to the creation of a politics of principle. The entry into the political arena of men of intelligence wedded to ideas and ideals had to be encouraged. Working-class participation in an advanced Liberal party purged of Palmerstonians was also requisite. If these objectives could be secured, the Liberal party would become something different from and far better than the loose combination of individuals who had followed Palmerston. Indispensable to this achievement, however, was a dramatic reduction in the cost of contesting elections, the end to which each of the amendments put forward by Mill and his associates was directed. The substitution of plutocracy for aristocracy could not make English government or English society what it should be; indeed, Mill was inclined to think that plutocracy aggravated the worst tendencies of aristocracy while introducing new ones to which aristocracy was not normally prone. "They desired to diminish the number of men in this House, who came in, not for the purpose of maintaining any political opinions whatever, but solely for the purpose, by a lavish expenditure, of acquiring the social position which attended a seat in this House, and which, perhaps, was not otherwise to be attained by them" (280). THE 1868 WESTMINSTER ELECTION THE IMPACT (if not the existence) of corrupt practices in the Westminster election of 1868 remains open to doubt. W.H. Smith's great wealth contributed to his success in 1868, but its failure to obtain the desired result in 1865 suggests that other factors were at work in Mill's second Westminster contest. Parliament was prorogued on 31 July and formally dissolved on 11 November. The prorogation accelerated an election campaign that had indeed already begun, 128

CW, XIX, 497-8.

Introduction

li

and lasted over three months. Mill left London for Avignon at the beginning of August and did not return to England until early November, two and a half weeks before polling day. His absence handicapped his Committee, which had just cause for irritation at Mill's posture. His removal from the scene of action suggested an aloofness from the proceedings that probably did his cause no good. It did not, however, prevent him from making seemingly desultory thrusts into the electoral terrain—without consulting those who were working to secure his re-election —that his Committee understandably considered ill-advised. In late August Mill sent a ten-pound contribution to Charles Bradlaugh's Northampton election fund. 129 Not only was Bradlaugh a notorious atheist, Malthusian, and Radical, but his candidacy in a constituency already represented by two well-established Liberals (Charles Gilpin and Lord Henley) would inevitably provoke discord in local Liberal ranks. Prudence dictated that a candidate standing in the Gladstonian interest should refrain from promoting challenges to Liberal incumbents, especially when the challenger was Charles Bradlaugh. Mill either failed to see the potentially destructive ramifications of his identification with Bradlaugh or he was indifferent to the consequences. A Bradlaugh victory could only be had at the expense of one of the sitting Liberals, and Gilpin (a member of the Jamaica Committee executive), an advanced Liberal himself though certainly not in Bradlaugh's league, respectfully expressed his unease to Mill in a letter of 7 September. In response, Mill assured Gilpin that Bradlaugh wanted Henley's seat and assumed, along with Mill, that Gilpin's position at Northampton was unassailable. He went on to say that Bradlaugh was a man of ability with distinctive opinions that should be heard in the House of Commons, adding that though "it is most important to uphold honest & honourable men, faithful supporters of our own party, like Lord Henley against Tories & lukewarm Liberals, [he did] not think that their claims ought to be allowed to prevail against the claims of exceptional men."130 By late September Mill had learned from his Committee that the subscription for Bradlaugh had provoked considerable fuss in Westminster and created difficulties for his supporters. Mill, "exceedingly sorry" that there should have been "trouble or annoyance," was not penitent. Had he not been a candidate he would have assisted Bradlaugh and he could not allow his own candidacy at Westminster to interfere with a course of action he thought right. It would be wrong for people to infer, Mill maintained, that his sympathy for Bradlaugh had any connection with the latter's religious opinions. What Mill admired in Bradlaugh was his thoughtfulness, his "ardour," his independence of mind. He was a "strenuous supporter of representation of minorities" and an "earnest" Malthusian. "If the capability of taking & the courage of maintaining such views as these is not a 129

Letter to Austin Holyoake, LL, CW, XVI, 1433 (28 Aug., 1868). id., 1434-5 (12 Sept., 1868).

130

Hi

Introduction

recommendation, to impartial persons, of an extreme radical politician, what is?" Admitting that the first priority should be the return of supporters of Gladstone, Mill observed that opponents of Gladstone were not contesting Northampton and that it was necessary to look beyond "the immediate struggle." He expressed the hope that the House of Commons elected in 1868 would embark on "a general revision of our institutions" and begin to act "against the many remediable evils which infest the existing state of society." Already the too exclusive attention to one great question [the Irish Church] has caused it to be generally remarked, by friends & enemies, that there will be very little new blood in the future Parlt, that the new H. of C. will be entirely composed of the same men, or the same kind of men, as the old one. Now I do not hesitate to say that this is not what ought to happen. We want, in the first place, representatives of the classes, now first admitted to the representation. And in the next place we want men of understanding whose minds can admit ideas not included in the conventional creed of Liberals or of Radicals, & men also of ardent zeal.131

In a letter of 1 October Mill again turned to the need for a real representation of working-class "opinions and feelings," which he was not at all sure the result of the 1868 general election would secure. It would be the responsibility of the new House to pass legislation that would improve the quality of life for the masses. "This cannot be expected unless the suffering as well as the prosperous classes are represented."132 That Bradlaugh, if elected, would do useful work in the House of Commons, Mill did not doubt; Edwin Chadwick's services there, Mill believed, would be invaluable. Their longstanding friendship made him keenly conscious both of Chadwick's ambition to sit in the House and of England's shabby treatment of a man who had done much for the betterment of his society. Mill encouraged Chadwick to stand for Kilmarnock against E.P. Bouverie, an Adullamite, and Mill's intervention in this contest would give rise to nearly as much unfavourable comment as did his support of Bradlaugh.133 Chadwick took with him to Kilmarnock a glowing letter of recommendation from Mill. On 16 and 22 October The Times published the exchange of correspondence that ensued between Bouverie and Mill. In his letter of 25 September the former conveyed his surprise and chagrin that Mill should instigate a division among the Liberals at Kilmarnock, who had supported Bouverie as their member for more than two decades. Acknowledging that he and Mill had their political differences, he observed that these had not prevented him, as an elector in Westminster, from endorsing Mill's candidacy. "Toleration for minor differ131

Letter to Thomas Beggs, ibid., 1449-50 (27 Sept., 1868). Letter to Samuel Warren Burton, ibid., 1452. 133 See The Times, 21 Oct. ,1868, 9. On 29 October Mill would admit to Cairnes that he was "more attacked for helping Chadwick against Bouverie ... than even for subscribing to Bradlaugh; though the latter proceeding is the more likely of the two to alienate voters in Westminster" (LL, CW, XVI, 1465). 132

Introduction

liii

ences, union for common public objects, such, at least, is the doctrine I entertain with regard to party action, and without a practical adhesion to it, I believe the Liberals will be powerless for good."134 In his response of 4 October Mill did not say what he thought of Bouverie's notion of party. Instead, he concentrated on Chadwick's special claims as an "exceptional man," asserting that "I would very gladly put him in my place if I saw a probability of success." Chadwick's qualities were such that considerations of party were, in his case, of secondary importance. Mill implied, however, that he could, if pressed, defend his intervention on party grounds.135 Bouverie did press him. On 13 October he accused Mill of setting himself up as an authority competent to determine the best interests of the electors of Kilmarnock. "If I were to act on your advice [by withdrawing], the result would be a substitution of your individual opinion for the free choice of the constituency." As the electors of Westminster, presumably, did not want Chadwick as their representative, there might be good reason to suppose that he would be no more acceptable to Kilmarnock. In effect, Bouverie charged Mill with an arrogant presumption that threatened to harm the Liberal interest, affirming that "the best hope of our common political adversaries lies in the Liberal constituencies being exposed to a contest among Liberals."136 Mill issued a very lengthy rejoinder on 19 October, in which he projected a conception of the Liberal party from which he knew Bouverie must dissent. He laid bare the significance he attached to the general election, placing personal considerations well into the background, and announcing that "we are not now in ordinary times." There were new electors and "new questions to be decided." Parliament required men who understood "the wants of the country" and the remedies for "the most pressing existing evils." The challenge to the Palmerstonians was unmistakable. If the "recognised candidates of the party" did not include "a reasonable number of men of advanced opinions, or possessing the confidence of the working classes," then they should not be surprised to face competition from unrecognized candidates. The Adullamites had wounded the Liberal party in the preceding Parliament and "if a similar result should befall it in the next there will be cause for bitter regret that the liberal party did not fight out its battles at the polling booths rather than in the lobby of the H. of C." Mill's strident conclusion stated as bluntly as could be stated under the circumstances his view that the Liberal party could well afford to do without Bouverie and those who sympathized with his politics. We do not want men who cast reluctant looks back to the old order of things, nor men whose liberalism consists chiefly in a warm adherence to all the liberal measures already passed, but men whose heart & soul are in the cause of progress, & who are animated by that ardour l34

The Times, 16 Oct., 1868, 10. LL, CW, XVI, 1453-4; The Times, 16 Oct., 1868, 10. l36 The Times, 16 Oct., 1868, 10. 13S

liv

Introduction

which in politics as in war kindles the commander to his highest achievements & makes the army at his command worth twice its numbers; men whose zeal will encourage their leader to attempt what their fidelity will give him strength to do. It would be poor statesmanship to gain a seeming victory at the poll by returning a majority numerically large but composed of the same incompatible elements as the last.137

Mill hoped that the general election would initiate a Radical take-over of the Liberal party. He may have felt fairly confident of his own success during the months in Avignon. By late October, however, the concern of Liberal organizers over the effort being mounted by W.H. Smith led to Mill's being summoned to London for the final fortnight of the campaign.138 Only upon his return did he comprehend the seriousness of his predicament. The tone and content of his election speeches suggest that leading figures on the Liberal Committee, believing that Mill had put himself in a dangerously exposed position and desiring to undo some of the damage that had been done, counselled moderation, restraint, and discretion. That such advice should be proffered is entirely understandable; that Mill should have taken it to heart is perhaps a little baffling. The most striking characteristic of Mill's November election speeches is that they are indistinguishable in message from what orthodox Liberal candidates were saying up and down the country. They are highly conventional partisan speeches. Praise for Gladstone, cuts for the Tories, the obligatory reference to the Irish Church, vague allusions to Irish land and social reform—these are the staple of Mill's election addresses.139 He had little to say about Jamaica, women's suffrage, personal representation, or the radicalization of the Liberal party. Something approaching defensiveness crept into both the speeches and the letters he wrote for publication at this time. In reiterating his hostility to the ballot, Mill expressed regret that he should find himself "conscientiously opposed to many of the Liberal party, though not in principle, upon the ballot question." (Mill stood on principle in rejecting the ballot; where this left the multitude of Liberals who favoured secret voting—from whom he pointedly declined to separate himself "in principle"—it is not easy to know.) His audience, in any case, need not worry about his position on the issue: "If he was wrong, he would be beaten in the end; so they could afford to let him have his way" (344). More revealing yet is Mill's letter of 9 November on the Bradlaugh connection that appeared two days later in The Times, Daily News, and Morning Star. Written in response to the fuss over the matter being 137

LL, CW, XVI, 1460-4; The Times, 22 Oct., 1868, 3. See his letter to Cairnes, LL, CW, XVI, 1465 (29 Oct., 1868). 139 Laudatory remarks on Gladstone were a commonplace in the election speeches of Liberal candidates, and Mill certainly was not remiss in this respect. Bagehot observes: "Mr. Gladstone's personal popularity was such as has not been seen since the time of Mr. Pitt, and such as may never be seen again. ... A bad speaker is said to have been asked how he got on as a candidate. 'Oh,' he answered, 'when I do not know what to say, I say "Gladstone," and then they are sure to cheer, and I have time to think'" (Introduction to 2nd ed. of The English Constitution, Works, V, 171). 138

Introduction

Iv

kicked up by the Tories, it says much for his state of mind a week before polling day. I suppose the persons who call me an Atheist are the same who are impudently asserting that Mr. Gladstone is a Roman Catholic. . . . An attempt was made to raise the same cry against me at my first election, & the defence which I did not choose to make for myself was made for me by several eminent dignitaries of. the C[hurch] of England. . . . If any one again tells you that I am an atheist, I would advise you to ask him, how he knows and in what page of my numerous writings he finds anything to bear out the assertion.140

Helen Taylor, on discovering that Mill had penned such a letter for publication, was not a little indignant. "I cannot tell you how ashamed I feel. ... Do not disgrace yourself as an open and truthful man; do not shut the door to all future power of usefulness on religious liberty by such mean & wretched subterfuges as this letter."141 Helen Taylor did not walk in Mill's shoes (though she may have tied them for him). In early November Mill had become acutely aware of the difficulties that in the preceding months had not penetrated his Avignon refuge. He held his cards close to his chest in the fortnight before the election because he lacked faith in the hand he had dealt himself. It was by no means a hand to be ashamed of—the pursuit of Eyre, fixity of tenure for Irish tenants, the contribution to Bradlaugh's campaign, and the endorsement of Chad wick—and Mill was not ashamed of it. He feared, however, that it might be a losing hand. Mill wanted to win in 1868 in order to be part of a new Liberal dispensation to which he felt he had much to offer. Neither Mill nor perhaps anyone else could have known in early November that W.H. Smith was not beatable. In the interval between the 1865 and 1868 elections Smith and his people had been assiduously nursing Westminster. His commitment and money, the latter drawn from a purse so deep as to approximate bottomlessness, generated the foundation of the London and Westminster Constitutional Association and fuelled the high level of activity it sustained in the lead-up to and during the 1868 election.142 Excluding the money spent on this effort prior to the summer of 1868 and the money spent by the London and Westminster Constitutional Association on behalf of Smith's candidacy while the election was in progress, expenditure directly attributable to Smith at the contest came to £9000, more than four times what the Liberal Committee spent for Grosvenor and Mill.143 140

Letter to Frederick Bates, LL, CW, XVI, 1483. Helen Taylor to Mill, Mill-Taylor Collection, British Library of Political and Economic Science, Vol. LIII(12Nov., 1868). 142 See Hanham, Elections and Party Management, 107-8. The Hambleden Papers (W.H. Smith and Son, London) for these years supply abundant evidence of the buildup of a formidable Tory machine in Westminster under Smith's leadership. 143 Mill's supporters filed a petition against Smith's return, claiming that the Smith campaign had bought votes. The petition was heard by Baron Martin, who ruled that although the bribing of voters seemed to figure among the practices of the London and Westminster Constitutional Association, 141

Ivi

Introduction

The Liberals got many more votes for their money than did Smith, but they were not enough to carry Mill: Smith, 7648; Grosvenor, 6584; Mill, 6284. Smith's victory marked the beginning of a trend that would establish Westminster as a virtually invincible Tory stronghold in the late nineteenth century. Two Tories would be returned at the 1874 election, Smith on this occasion polling 9371 votes, nearly 5000 more than the stronger of the two Liberal candidates.144 When viewed from this perspective, a perspective unavailable in 1868 to Westminster Liberals disappointed with their showing, it can be seen that Mill did not do at all badly. Might he have won had he known that Grosvenor and not Smith was the man to beat and acted accordingly? Mill did not run against Grosvenor in 1868 nor could he have done so. In 1865 animosity between their respective Committees had been overcome shortly before polling day in the interest of mutual assistance, from which Mill stood to benefit more than Grosvenor. In 1868 there was a single Liberal Committee sponsoring both candidates. It could not be said that Grosvenor had distinguished himself in the House of Commons, but then no one had expected him to. Unlike his kinsman, the future Duke of Westminster,145 Captain Grosvenor had kept his distance from the Adullamite camp and done nothing to give offence to either Gladstone or advanced Liberals. In July of 1868 the leader of the Liberal party, aware that Grosvenor intended to stand again, sent a letter to the Chairman of the Westminster Liberal Committee recommending Grosvenor to the electors of the constituency.146 A unilateral decision by Mill to take on Grosvenor would have created havoc in Liberal ranks and probably harmed Mill more than Grosvenor, who might have attracted more Tory votes than he did if Mill had gone after him. Most Conservatives clearly plumped for Smith, but those who did not would be far more likely to split their votes between Smith and Grosvenor than between Smith and Mill. If Liberals of whatever stripe could find little to complain of in Grosvenor's conduct, he was inconsequential enough to generate much less hostility among Tories than did his Liberal associate. Mill, in short, had almost no room for manoeuvre in November of 1868; that he finished only three hundred votes behind Grosvenor was in itself a triumph of sorts. Although Mill was the most eminent of the Radicals denied admission to the Gladstonian host elected in 1868, he had plenty of worthy company. Bradlaugh and Chadwick were defeated. George Odger, in whose candidacy Mill had taken a Smith could not be held responsible for the conduct of this "independent agency." Smith's election stood. See O'Leary, Elimination of Corrupt Practices, 50-1. 144 See John Biddulph Martin, "The Elections of 1868 and 1874," Royal Statistical Society Journal, XXXVII (1874), 197. The combined total of votes for the two Liberal candidates at Westminster in 1874 was only 8184; the two Tories polled 18,052 between them. 145 Hugh Lupus Grosvenor; see xxx above. 146 "Captain Grosvenor ... has shewn himself to be an able and faithful representative, whom his constituents might well have chosen from his personal merits and ability alone" (Hanham, Elections and Party Management, 80).

Introduction

lvii

special interest,147 retired from the field in Chelsea to prevent a Conservative victory there. Edmond Beales, George Howell, and W.R. Cremer—leading figures (as was Odger) in the political world of working-class activists—failed to win their contests. The university Liberals—G.C. Brodrick, E.A. Freeman, Auberon Herbert, George Young, Godfrey Lushington, Charles Roundell—were also unsuccessful.148 None of this was lost on Mill, who found little to celebrate in the results. In a letter to Charles Eliot Norton, Mill remarked on "the defeat of the radical party throughout the country."149 A Liberal party, even one led by Gladstone, that did not include a substantial battalion of Radicals in the House of Commons (working-class representatives among them) was of limited use to Mill. The experience of 1868 compelled him to recognize that Liberal constituency organizations, largely dominated by men of means, would resist the changes in personnel and policy that he wished to promote.150 He also believed that such short-sightedness would ultimately alienate the working-class electorate and enfeeble the Liberal party. In early November he asserted to John Plummer that the "Liberal party will have cause to repent of not having adopted the best leaders of the working men and helped them to seats. "151 Mill urged working-class political organizations to use their influence to insist on representation equal to that of the higher classes within the party. "Where a place returns two members, one of these should be a candidate specially acceptable to the working classes: where there is but one, he shd be selected in concert by both sections of Liberals."152 Mill's loyalty to a Gladstonian Liberal party that refused to give the working classes their due did not extend very far. By February of 1870 he was ready to sanction tactics that emphasized his complete detachment from the Liberal establishment. Writing to George Odger, Mill declared: "It is plain that the Whigs intend to monopolise political power as long as they can without coalescing in any degree with the Radicals. The working men are quite right in allowing Tories to get into the House to defeat this exclusive feeling of the Whigs, and may do it without sacrificing any principle."153 When Mill came to write the concluding section of the Autobiography he had been disabused of the notion that the 1867 Reform Act and a Gladstonian ascendancy would usher in a new political era responsive to his sense of priorities. He conceived of the years immediately following his defeat as the beginning of a 147

See letter to W.R. Cremer, LL, CW, XVI, 1485 (10 Nov., 1868). For a valuable study of the university liberals, see Christopher Harvie, The Lights of Liberalism: University Liberals and the Challenge of Democracy (London: Penguin, 1976). 149 LL, CW, XVI, 1493 (28 Nov., 1868). 150 The leading item on Mill's list of policy changes would probably have been the land question, Irish and English. For Mill's relation to this subject, see David Martin, John Stuart Mill and the Land Question (Hull: University of Hull Publications, 1981). 151 LL, CW, XVI, 1479 (5 Nov., 1868). '"Letter to R.C. Madge (Secretary of the Chelsea Working Men's Parliamentary Electoral Association), ibid., 1514 (7 Dec., 1868). I53 lbid., XVII, 1697 (19 Feb., 1870). 148

Iviii

Introduction

transitional period, the outcome of which could not be confidently predicted.154 Mill's post-election uncertainty manifestly distorted the account he gave of his parliamentary career by refracting it through a lens that elevated the independent aspects of his conduct at the expense of the pattern of action moulded from his interpretation of the ongoing party struggle and its possible implications. Such a pattern did exist, and its source resided in Mill's view of himself as a progressive politician functioning within a system that seemed to offer unprecedented opportunities for a fundamental reshaping of the Liberal party. In retrospect it may appear that Mill should have known better than to think that things could have turned out other than they did in 1868. His hopes and illusions, it might be supposed, were those of an amateur lacking a sound grasp of the English political world and the social forces that shaped it. Such condescension would be misplaced. The mid-Victorian equilibrium and the reassurance it gave the governing classes concerning the stability of English society made the granting of borough household suffrage a conceivable option in 1867. But those who conceded so much were by no means sure that nothing untoward would flow from it. Mill's perhaps unreasonable hopes were matched by equally unreasonable fears on the part of some whose miscalculations could not be ascribed to political naivete. Lord Derby meant what he said when he spoke of "a leap in the dark." Mill was looking for a leap into the light, and from 1866 through 1868 he had done what he thought best to help prepare the way for it. THE LATE PUBLIC SPEECHES RELEASED from parliamentary constraints and responsibilities, Mill redirected his political activism in the last five years of his life to focus on several abiding passions: women's suffrage, education, and land reform.155 As assessment of 154 In January of 1869 Mill wrote that he had "never felt more uncertainty about the immediate future of politics" (part of a passage deleted from a letter to W.T. Thornton, ibid., 1548 [16 Jan., 1869]). Two months later he admitted to Fawcett that he had "considerable difficulty in judging ... of any question of political tactics, during the present transitional state of politics" (ibid., 1579 [22 Mar., 1869]). 155 Whereas Mill was central in initiating the organized movements for women's suffrage and land reform, his taking up of the education question was prompted by the government's 1870 Education Bill. Although he spoke on education, he did not publish material on the subject during these years, as he did on the other two. The Subjection of Women appeared in print in 1869. Relevant to his association with the land question in this period are two essays written for the Fortnightly Review, "Professor Leslie on the Land Question," n.s., VII (1870), 641-54 (in Essays on Economics and Society, CW, IV-V [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967], V, 669-85); "Mr. Maine on Village Communities," n.s., IX (1871), 543-56; the 1871 Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, with an Explanatory Statement by John Stuart Mill (in CW, V, 687-95); and three contributions to the Examiner in 1873: "Advice to Land Reformers," 4 Jan., 1-2; "Should Public Bodies Be Required to Sell Their Lands?" 11 Jan., 29-30; "The Right of Property in Land," 19 July, 725-8 (in Newspaper Writings, ed. Ann P. and John M. Robson, CW, XXII-XXV [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986], XXV, 1227-43).

Introduction

lix

Mill's parliamentary career shows in its abundant variety those elements that defined its essential unity, so analysis of the late public speeches reveals features common to the core of Mill's radicalism. Hitherto, the fundamental question has been: What do the Westminster years demonstrate about the character of Mill's political objectives in the second half of the 1860s and the means by which he sought to give them effect? Emphasis has been placed on Mill's conception of the party struggle and its relation to his ultimate purposes. The claim is not that the meaning of each and every speech he gave in the House of Commons can be uncovered only through a penetration of the political layers within which the words were often embedded, but that on those critical issues determining the rise and fall of party fortunes Mill acted as a politician in pursuit of fairly precise political aims. Even though the parliamentary context is not especially germane to most of the late public speeches, when viewed as a group they can be seen to encapsulate themes basic to what Mill had been doing from 1865 through 1868. The speeches on women's suffrage, education, and land reform manifest Mill's commitment to a politics of inclusion. The exclusion of women from the franchise "is a last remnant of the old bad state of society—the regimen of privileges and disabilities" (407). Mill wants a sound elementary education made available to all children. He stoutly rejects the claims of religious sectarianism to rate-money designated for educational ends. The exclusionist tendencies of sectarianism were anathema to Mill. The existing distribution of landed property in England, buttressed by such artificial contrivances as primogeniture, entail, and strict settlement, unjustly excluded the vast majority of people from what should be accessible to all. Mill, speaking on behalf of the Land Tenure Reform Association, denounced such contrivances. The Association's programme, in the drawing up of which Mill had been instrumental, also called for preservation of the commons, government supervision of the waste lands in the interest of the public and the agricultural labourers (to whom allotments on favourable terms should be offered), and—most radical of all—a tax on the unearned increment of rent.156 Landed property must no longer be treated "as if it existed for the power and dignity of the proprietary class and not for the general good" (417). Unquestionably, a strain of old anti-establishment radicalism lingered in Mill. Privileges, monopolies, exclusiveness—in his mind, these were linked inextricably to the pernicious consequences of aristocratic government. Mill, however, was more interested in elucidating the advantages of progressive change than he was in savaging what remained (quite a lot) of the establishment. Mill's politics of inclusion sprang from a profoundly democratic civic 156 For a stimulating assessment of the general controversy over land reform and its political significance, see Harold Perkin, "Land Reform and Class Conflict in Victorian Britain," in his The Structured Crowd: Essays in English Social History (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1981), 100-35. For Mill in particular, see Martin, John Stuart Mill and the Land Question, and Samuel Hollander, The Economics of John Stuart Mill, 2 vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), II, 833-55.

lx

Introduction

consciousness. Participation was integral to political education. An educated citizenry was vital to the creation and perpetuation of a healthy body politic. The expansive ideal of citizenship inculcated by Mill put a premium on a widely diffused energy, virtue, and intelligence. The achievement of a higher politics required, among other things, opportunities for personal growth, which entailed bringing more and better schooling, more civic participation, more material benefits, and more beauty within the reach of more and more people. Thus Mill ardently supported working-class enfranchisement and women's suffrage; universal elementary education, which should be in no way inferior to the best primary education bought by the rich; the election of women and working men to school boards; generous allotments for agricultural labourers; public access to parks and commons; and, indeed, a citizen army ("Henceforth our army should be our whole people trained and disciplined") (413). Political development, personal growth, and an increase in the total sum of human happiness were to advance together. Mill appreciated that very practical considerations respecting political power had to be attacked by a reformer with an agenda such as this. Abraham Hayward, in his obituary on Mill for The Times, observed that "of late years Mill has not come before the world with advantage. When he appeared in public it was to advocate the fanciful rights of women, or to propound some impracticable reform or revolutionary change in the laws relating to land. "157 It should be borne in mind that Hayward and The Times would have cheered the resurrection of Palmerston. The picture of the later Mill as a crotchety philosopher promoting hare-brained schemes comforted those who wanted no part of his radicalism. That radicalism deliberately cultivated a hard-headedness that Hayward's shallow dismissal cannot obscure. Mill persistently grappled with issues of power: political, intellectual, and economic. A state that withheld the franchise from women, quality elementary education from the masses, and land reform from the agricultural labourers of England and the tenant farmers of Ireland illegitimately denied to these groups the power needed for self-protection. The liberal state advocated by Mill would confer that power upon the disadvantaged and dispossessed. Mill's political speeches, no less than his political writings, evince a readiness to tackle the problem of power. "Safety does not lie in excluding some, but in admitting all, that contrary errors and excesses may neutralise one another" (390-1). With the suffrage, women "cannot long be denied any just right, or excluded from any fair advantage: without it, their interests and feelings will always be a secondary consideration, and it will be thought of little consequence how much their sphere is circumscribed, or how many modes of using their faculties are denied to them" (380). Mill is encouraged by signs of an awakening agricultural labouring class, the "most neglected, and, as it has hitherto seemed, most helpless portion of the labouring population." They had at last "found a l57

The Times, 10 May, 1873, 5.

Introduction

lxi

voice, which can, and which will, make itself heard by the makers of our laws" (430). There is plenty of room for disagreement among commentators concerning how successfully Mill assayed the problem of power; it cannot be persuasively argued that he overlooked or evaded it. The theoretical and practical tenability of a politics of inclusion partly hinged upon its enlistment of a valid principle and process of authority.158 The final authority for public policy must reside in the will of the democracy. The exercise of that will in the public interest, however, necessitated the acceptance by the demos of a conspicuous role for individuals with superior abilities, knowledge, and experience. Different people had very different ideas of popular government; they thought that it meant that public men should fling down all the great subjects among the people, let every one who liked have his word about them, and trust that out of the chaos there would form itself something called public opinion, which they would have nothing to do but to carry into effect. That was not his idea of popular government, and he did not believe that popular government thus understood and carried on would come to good. His idea of popular government was, a government in which statesmen, and thinking and instructed people generally pressed forward with their best thoughts and plans, and strove with all their might to impress them on the public mind. What constituted the government a free and popular one was, not that the initiative was left to the general mass, but that statesmen and thinkers were obliged to carry the mind and will of the mass along with them; they could not impose these ideas by compulsion as despots could. (395.)

In Parliament and out, Mill strove with all his might.

158

Although a theory of authority is implicit in much that Mill wrote, he never furnished an extensive or systematic treatment of the issue. For a valuable exploration of the problem, see Richard B. Friedman, "An Introduction to Mill's Theory of Authority," in Mill: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. J.B. Schneewind (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 379-425.

This page intentionally left blank

Textual Introduction JOHN M. ROBSON MOST OF MILL'S LATER SPEECHES have never been republished.1 Those here collected2 are mainly from Parliamentary Debates and newspapers; one uniquely exists in manuscript and one in typescript, and four others are also extant in manuscript as well as in print; a handful appeared in pamphlets, and one was reprinted in Dissertations and Discussions. Our goal, to include all Mill's speeches in the House of Commons and in public,3 remains ideal, for several reasons. First, Mill kept no record of his speeches, and we have had to follow many trails, some clear, others overgrown. Locating the public, non-parliamentary speeches gave most difficulty. The existence of a few is signalled in correspondence and other documents, some are found in manuscript or in newspaper clippings in the Mill-Taylor Collection, and others have been located through that indispensable but tormenting aid, Palmer's Index to The Times. The Times, however, did not report all Mill's speeches, and we have had to search through files of other London (and occasionally provincial) papers. Under current and abiding conditions, such a search can never be final, and we have asked for and received help from scholars and institutions. Our success will be tested by time and the industry of others; our certain claim is only that we have found many more than were previously known. Locating Mill's speeches in the House of Commons presents no comparable difficulty, the basic guide being the index in Parliamentary Debates. Even here, however, a couple of minor items appeared only after a search through St. Stephen's Chronicle, a short-lived journal of parliamentary affairs. A second problem lies in definition. What is "a speech"? Surely some interjections cannot qualify, and what of questions and replies, or series of short comments? No logical fineness seems here necessary, and our short answer is that 'Headnotes to the individual items give details of publication and republication during Mill's lifetime. In his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, "The Collected Speeches of John Stuart Mill with Introduction and Notes" (Wisconsin, 1955), John Ellery included a substantial but incomplete collection of the speeches in raw form. 2 His other extant speeches, all from the 1820s, are in Journals and Debating Speeches, Vols. XXVI-XXVII of the Collected Works. 3 The only exception is the Inaugural Address at St. Andrews, which is included with Mill's other educational writings in Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, CW, Vol. XXI, on the grounds that it was prepared for publication.

lxiv

Textual Introduction

all Mill's remarks are of value in a complete record of his parliamentary career. For convenience we have ruled that all Mill's recorded words on a specific subject of debate on one day constitute a speech. This policy would prove annoying if he had often made an isolated comment on an issue, which we would by this rule dignify as a speech; fortunately, almost all his interventions can be merged with others as part of a continuing discussion in Committee of the Whole. In fact, we have preserved only a few potentially irritating instances, of which Nos. 30, 35, and 78 are most likely to peeve; if there were more, another practice would be justifiable. The impatient will be grateful that Mill's one recorded silent intervention is mentioned only in a footnote (No. 22, nl). And one intended speech is recorded only here: on 12 March, 1868, the Speaker was faced with several Members, including Mill, Agon-Ellis, and Pirn, who wished to offer remarks on the Irish Church. Bernal Osborne moved that the Honourable Member for Westminster be next heard, thus occasioning "some laughter, mingled with cries of 'Order'"; however, the Speaker ceded the floor to Agon-Ellis.4 Though a secondary goal is to give, through our text and editorial apparatus, a skeletal guide to Mill's activities in the House of Commons, we have not elevated to textual status his seconding of an unsuccessful motion for a return of the number of times since the Act of Union the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended in Ireland or the number of acts of repression there since then, and of the number of Irish people sentenced for political offences, indicating which acts had been applied in each case (19 Mar., 1868; PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, col. 1939). We also have not given as textual items his notices of motion.5 All of these except two are mentioned in notes to speeches when the motions were made; in two cases, however, no speech was reported. On 5 March, 1867, on Mill's motion, a return was ordered of the number of robberies of pillar letter-boxes in the metropolis and city of London, giving the number for each year separately from the period of the establishment of the system.6 And on 16 May, 1867, he gave notice of motion that certain petitions against the National Gallery Enlargement Bill be referred to a Select Committee on the Bill.7 THE TYPESCRIPT AND MANUSCRIPTS THE TYPESCRIPT is that of "Secular Education," the first item. It transcribes a manuscript, not now located, formerly in the possession of Harold J. Laski, who 4

The Times, 13 Mar., 7. It should be recorded, however, that when he gave notice of motion on 8 June, 1866, for a return of the numbers of those, otherwise qualified, who were denied the franchise because of their sex, the House responded with "Laughter" (The Times, 9 June, 6), and that when he gave notice of his motion to replace "man" with "person" in the Reform Bill of 1867, the response was mixed "Laughter and cheers" (The Times, 20 Mar., 6). 6 Reported in The Times, 6 Mar., 6. ''Ibid., 17 May, 8. 5

Textual Introduction

lxv

published it in an appendix to his edition of Mill's Autobiography.8 He had bought it as part of Lot 719 in Sotheby's sale on 29 March, 1922, of the effects of Mary Taylor, Mill's step-granddaughter.9 The extant manuscripts are printed here in Appendix D; a fragment is given as a variant note to No. 26; and a speech of Helen Taylor's appears as Appendix F. The manuscript of No. 6, "The Westminster Election of 1865 [2]," was part of Lot 669 in the second Sotheby's sale of Mary Taylor's effects, on 27 July, 1927. Described as "SPEECH to the Electors of Westminster, Auto. Notes, 4 pp. 8vo," it was bought in 1956 for the Mill-Taylor Collection from Myers for £46. The Houghton Library, Harvard, obtained the manuscript of No. 16, "Representation of the People [2]," as a gift from George Herbert Palmer, who bought it (as a sticker indicates) at the sale of Mill's books and papers by the Avignon bookseller, Roumanille, on 21-28 May, 1905, after Helen Taylor had moved back to England. The fragment of No. 26, "The Disturbances in Jamaica [ 1 ]," in the Yale University Library, was presumably part of Lot 730 in the Sotheby's sale of 29 March, 1922, which included "various unfinished MSS. in the hand of J.S. Mill, and various essays on the Education of Women, etc., by Helen Taylor a large parcel." The provenance of the manuscript of No. 144, "Women's Suffrage [ 1 ]," in the Mill-Taylor Collection, is not known. The Houghton Library, Harvard, also has the manuscript of No. 145, "The Education Bill," which was donated by Mrs. Norman Himes; it was, like that of No. 6, part of Lot 669 in the Sotheby's sale of 27 July, 1927, " AUTO. NOTES for a Speech of [sic] the Education League, 9 pp. 4to." The fragment of Helen Taylor's speech, "War and Peace," our Appendix F, also part of the Himes donation to Harvard, is not identifiable as an item from these sales. THE TEXTS EACH ITEM consists of a headnote, the text, and notes. The headnote gives the provenance of the copy-text, lists other versions, and provides the immediate context, with other closely relevant information. The notes, at the foot of the page, are substantive and textual. The substantive notes include Mill's own (in the sequence *, †, etc.) and the editors' (in numerical sequence, beginning anew in each item or section of an item). The textual notes normally record variant readings, with alphabetic markers in the text signalling the word or words for which the variant reading is a substitute; these too begin anew in each item or section of an item. The texts themselves have been determined in ways appropriate to their kind and provenance. No overall principle presents itself, although in places our methods "Oxford University Press, 1924, 326-30. For a full account of this collection, see the Textual Introduction to Journals and Debating Speeches, CW, Vols. XXVI-XXVII. 9

lxvi

Textual Introduction

parallel those based on established principles; for reasons that will become obvious, new rules (with their exceptions) have had to be devised. The problems originate in the recording and transmission of texts.10 Leaving aside for the moment the few instances where there is a holograph manuscript, we are faced in the non-parliamentary speeches with one or more reports taken in shorthand by recorders for the press or, in rare instances, for special interest groups, including the organizers of the meetings at which Mill spoke. If there is but one report, there are no decisions to make other than those resulting from a study of possible errors. But usually there is more than one report, and when there is, there are large as well as small differences. Most significantly, the reports differ in the length of the main text, in the reporting of answers to questions, and in incidental details. Also, there are differences in the emphasis given to particular parts of speeches, and in summary as against what purports to be (and undoubtedly sometimes is) a verbatim account. Furthermore, some reports are in direct speech, that is, the first person, present tense, but most are in indirect speech, that is, the third person, which by convention carries the past tense.11 Attempts to establish one text consequently must involve an initial choice of copy-text, and then a collation of goats and cabbages, as the French seem to say. If Mill indicates elsewhere, as he occasionally does, which text is to be preferred, we have followed his choice. The same decision might seem to be entailed when there is a pamphlet or other reprint; however, such a document may represent in places what he wished he had said rather than what he actually said. The latter elusive goal being ours, careful consideration must be given to internal criteria. The two most significant of these are comparative length and voice. As to length, it may with reasonable certainty be assumed that reporters did not normally add (except perhaps transitional words); indeed the established rule was "When in doubt leave out. ".12 So we have tended to accept the fullest account as copy-text. It is equally probable, however, that first-person are closer than third-person accounts to verbatim reporting, and are to be preferred for those portions of a speech that they cover. Fortunately, these two criteria seldom conflict, because first-person accounts are generally longer as well. Still, collation is necessary, for often reports that are inferior on these two grounds include matter not found in the copy-text. Consequently, it is necessary to compare what purport to be direct quotations with summaries, because the latter sometimes contain not merely ideas but words that seem prima facie and even after examination to represent something that was said. This comparison leaves one with a decision as 10 For a fuller discussion of these matters, with special reference to Parliamentary Debates, see John M. Robson, What Did He Say? Editing Nineteenth-Century Speeches from Hansard and the Newspapers (Lethbridge: University of Lethbridge Press, 1988). 11 More precisely, not the past tense, but one tense further back than would be used in reporting direct speech. 12 Michael MacDonagh, The Reporters' Gallery (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d. [1928?]), 73.

Textual Introduction

lxvii

to which substantives should be included in the final text; that is, which words or passages should be added from versions other than the copy-text, and which substituted for what are judged to be inferior wordings. In accidentals the copy-text is followed except in demonstrable deficiencies (which are less frequent than the major provenance, newspapers, would suggest). The result is inescapably eclectic, but, given the facts, all the better for its mixed parentage. It is physically impossible to record all the variant readings without printing parallel texts of each version, a solution both economically impossible and morally inutile.13 Our decision has therefore been to give in variant notes (a) all the readings from the copy-text for which alternate versions have been preferred, (b) alternate readings that, while they have not seemed sufficiently grounded to justify elevation to the text, are possibly what Mill said, or may have influenced judgments of what he said, and (c) manuscript versions that, though probably not uttered, might have been (the recorded version being a mishearing or reporter's "improvement"), or that have interest as suggesting an ad hoc change of mind. The question will have arisen in editors' minds as to why the extant manuscripts are not chosen as copy-text. The reason is simply stated, although its simplicity will not convince traditionalists. As indicated above, what we aim at, looking up to admit and so ensure that we cannot hit the target, is a record of what Mill actually said. A manuscript, even if he read from it (and that option was usually not open and seldom followed), gives only what he apparently intended to say— "apparently" because most speakers consciously leave open the possibility of departing from a text when, as is normally the case, the occasion calls for an alteration. Further, the intention, no matter how fixed, is often frustrated by circumstances, such as lack of time, and faltering memory or tongue.14 It would be foolish to assert that what Mill actually uttered always better fulfilled the intentions he had when he planned a speech, but certainly most of the modifications found in our collations suggest a later intention consciously if rapidly cancelling or modifying the earlier one. To enable others to test our judgments, however, we give the full manuscript texts in Appendix D. Given our view that the best version of a speech reflects its circumstances, we have also recorded, in italic type, the audiences' responses.15 Here again we have followed the copy-text, except in adding responses not there contained and in substituting wordings that are fuller or more precise. In choosing the wording of responses from among differing accounts, we have taken that which is most expressive and full, and not given the others in variant notes, except in the rare 13 One example, No. 4, of a comparatively short text in three versions, is given as an Appendix in Robson, What Did He Say? 14 This frequent malaise was identified by a friend as being "tongue-struck." 15 In the parliamentary speeches, the names of Members, when added in parentheses after their constituencies, are also given in italics, as additions to the spoken word, as are the insertions of "(Mr. Mill)" following "he" in third-person reports.

lxviii

Textual Introduction

cases when there is some difference of tone or even full contradiction,16 or when the response can be seen as tied to a particular textual variant.17 The specific sources of the responses are given only when they form part of larger variants. The actual form of course reflects the different reporters' (and perhaps editors') views of how to indicate what happened;18 in surprisingly few cases do different versions suggest a bias towards or against Mill and his positions, but almost always they add not just colour but understanding to one's reading. I hope, for instance, that the frequency with which audiences are reported to have responded with "(Laughter)" will modify at least interstitially the uninformed judgment that Mill was without humour. A summary of the events leading up to Mill's remarks is given in the headnotes. Except for the copy-texts, the dates of texts from daily newspapers are given only when they differ from that of the copy-text. Within the text itself the concluding events and remarks by others, and when appropriate intervening events and remarks, are supplied in italic type and, when summarized rather than quoted directly from the copy-text, also in square brackets. (This practice is quite straightforward except in the uncommon cases when a report moves from an apparent attempt to convey the main ideas, if not the words, into an obvious attempt to summarize the flow of the speech.) We have included in these summaries all references to Mill, sometimes embedded in long quotations. In turning to Mill's parliamentary speeches, it may be thought that one is leaving behind the excitement and weariness of textual problems. There is, after all, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates on which to rely. What is not generally known is that T.C. Hansard Jr., who was responsible for the series from the 1830s through the period when Mill was in the Commons, had no official mandate and, apart from rare occasions, no reporters of his own.19 In fact, Hansard proceeded in just the way we have, collating newspaper accounts and giving an eclectic text; he, however, indicates the sources of his texts only in the rare instances when an asterisk signals that a speech was sent to him by the Member; almost always one is left with the choice of taking his text as gospel or trying to unravel what he has 16 See No. 58i-i and x - x , the latter odd, as both contradictory responses may be read as the same answer to a rhetorical question. 17 SeeNo. ll d - d and e-e . 18 That national habits and predilections are not irrelevant will occur to those with experience of the debates in the French Chambers, which are more Gallically dramatic. One must envy French editors who can choose, for example: "Voix des extrémités: Ce n'est pas la question!"; "De toutes parts: Aux voix l'amendement!"; "Bruits divers"; "Vif mouvement d'adhésion"; "Sensation prolongée"; "Rires aux extrémités"; "Hilarité générale et prolongée"; "Violente interruption"; "Profond silence" (less commonly found); "Vives réclamations a gauche"—and so on. The English satirical paper Judy commented: "the French press always keeps in type the following phrases during the sittings of the Corps Législatif:—'Uproar,' 'Continued uproar,' 'Fresh uproar,' 'Signs of Denial,' 'Emotion,' 'Violence from the Opposition,' 'Offensive expressions from the left,' in order that they may be 'distributed' among the speeches" (4 Mar., 1868, 240). 19 The history of his operations and of the confusions resulting is given in Robson, What Did He Say?, with examples of abiding conundrums.

Textual Introduction

lxix

given and then knitting all together again in a new—or perhaps the same?— pattern. Neither of these choices is attractive, and we have fallen somewhere between. His resources, being immediate and concerted, were better than ours can be, and he and his collators were extraordinarily practised in their craft; therefore we have taken his versions as copy-text, looking for confirmation in the few extant manuscript and pamphlet versions. As a check, however, we have compared the versions in The Times, which is thought to have been Hansard's main source, because generally it provided the fullest record. To our surprise, it appears that almost never does Hansard's text agree with that of The Times; indeed, in Mill's case, we have found only a handful of speeches, all very short, where there is coincidence.20 As a further check, we have made a comparison with the versions in St. Stephen's Chronicle, which reported parliamentary matters in 1867; here again there is but rare agreement with Parliamentary Debates, although there is not infrequent agreement with The Times.21 This search produced, as mentioned above, two minor speeches by Mill (on 8 March and 4 July), neither of which is in Parliamentary Debates or in Palmer's Index to The Times, though both are summarized in The Times. The results of all these comparisons are not trivial, but are also not sufficiently significant for us to adopt anything other than Parliamentary Debates as copy-text. It must not be thought that this decision removes all problems, for even the difficulty over person and tense arises: in No. 120, for instance, which combines several of Mill's interventions, the first passage in Parliamentary Debates is in the first person, present tense, while the next two are in the third person, past tense; consequently, in adding a fourth from The Times that is not in Parliamentary Debates, we decided to leave it in the third person, past tense, to match what immediately preceded it. As in the public speeches, we have accepted some variants to complement or replace parts of the copy-text, and have used the alternate texts for the responses in the House. The newspapers' record of responses is, indeed, much fuller than Parliamentary Debates provides, and gives more to think about.22 Mill, as a prominent Member, was solicited for texts, and at least some of the reports in the Morning Star, the Daily News, and the Daily Telegraph may have had the benefit of his manuscript notes. Writing in June 1866 to Charles Ross, the chief parliamentary reporter for The Times, who had evidently asked him to supply such manuscript, Mill said that, so far as he had examined The Times's report, it 20 Instances are No. 110, which has only two sentences of Mill's, and No. 127, where there are five sentences, with one accidental difference. No. 57 exemplifies cases where the report in The Times differs markedly in arrangement as well as wording from that in Parliamentary Debates. 21 In one case, No. 56, St. Stephen's Chronicle is much closer to Parliamentary Debates than is The Times. 22 See, for instance, No. 72, where we have added from The Times in one place, "(Loud cries of Oh!)", and in several others, "(Oh, oh.)", and cf. No. 88'"'. No. 62 illustrates cases where there are more responses in The Times, which here adds three to the one in Parliamentary Debates.

Ixx

Textual Introduction

seemed so good that it had not suffered by the lack of his script. He continued: If I understand your note correctly it would not be open to you, if you took a speech from myself, to give slips to the other papers. I am afraid, if this is so, that it will generally prevent me from availing myself of your obliging offer to receive such communications from me. It is of much more importance to be well reported in the Times than anywhere else, but one is so much more certain of being so, that if one has to choose between sending one's notes to the Times or to the other papers one would rather do it to the others.23

He explained his practice to W.F. Rae on 2 June: The reason I do not give my speeches to the Times, is that the Times would keep them to itself, while the other papers give slips to one another. It would be a great piece of servility to give anything that depends on me to the Times alone; denying it to the papers with whose politics I agree, and which have acted in the most friendly manner to me throughout.24

As mentioned above, occasionally Mill gave the nod to one or another account, crediting with the best report the Morning Star (Nos. 47 and 124) or the Daily Telegraph (No. 133), and it may be assumed that they were, as most sympathetic to his views, generally fuller in their accounts. But the presumption is not strong enough to override, in the case of the public speeches, the evidence from collation, or, in the case of the parliamentary speeches, the superior resources of Hansard. In brief summary, we conclude that the text of public and parliamentary speeches, when there are competing authorities, must be eclectic, in the interest of providing the reader with the fullest account possible in one place. The assumptions behind particular choices of text are that (a) Mill did not normally give reporters a text (exceptions, as indicated above, are given special authority), and even when he did, his final intentions, which we respect, are better indicated in the reports of what he said than in what he planned to say; (b) normally reporters made no attempt at verbatim reporting (their highest goal being that of T.C. Hansard, a "full and accurate" account),25 but summarized and revised, taking little time over decisions, aiming to fill the available space with what in their view their editors and readers would find most important; (c) reporters and editors for various newspapers differed in their views of what was most important; (d) reporters and editors did not normally add passages, though they added transitional words or phrases to make their summaries coherent; and (e) as a result, the fullest text from any source probably contains more of what Mill actually said, and so should be used as copy-text, though any variant found in another version may accurately represent what Mill said in that particular passage. 23

LL, CW, XVI, 1173. The reference is presumably to No. 52, given in the House of Commons on 31 May, in which case the letter should be dated 1 or 2 June (see the next letter quoted). The only known speech by Mill in June was No. 53, delivered on the 23rd. ^Ibid., 1174. 25 "Report from the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting," Parliamentary Papers, 1878-79, XII, 30.

Textual Introduction

Ixxi

EMENDATIONS TO THE TEXTS IN GENERAL, contractions and abbreviations are expanded to conform to what would be spoken. Other changes are listed in Appendix G, with explanations except when the change has been made for obvious reasons of sense (including easily identified typographical errors). In conformity with modern practice, italic type is used for the titles of works published separately, while quotation marks are placed around titles of parts of separate publications. Foreign words and phrases are normalized to italic, as are the abbreviations for currency. In the appendices giving questions and petitions, the dates that begin entries are styled uniformly. When a speech is reported in the first person, the introductory "Mr. J.S. Mill:" is not recorded. VARIANT NOTES THE SYSTEM of recording variant readings used throughout this edition is based on superscript letters in the text; these appear in pairs around words or phrases, or singly centred between words or between a word and punctuation. As explained above, in the few cases where there are manuscripts, these are printed in Appendix D, but some passages, interesting for various reasons, are also given as variants. The practice for the public speeches is illustrated in No. 4, where the Morning Star provides the copy-text, but alternate readings are adopted from the Daily News and The Times. For instance, on 12 a superscript italic letter a appears in the text at the beginning and end of a two-sentence passage; the variant note, beginning "a~aDN" gives the alternative reading from the Daily News (three sentences) and then, following a closing square bracket and "TT", the alternative reading from The Times (two sentences). At \1d~d a sentence from the Daily News, not paralleled in the other version, is given in the text; the variant note reads "d~d+DN". At \T~e another passage from the Daily News is given in the text; the note indicates again the source and that it is an addition by " e ~ e +DN", and then continues after a closing square bracket to give the alternative reading from The Times, beginning "TT". When an alternative reading is not given in the text (as is the case with manuscript versions), a single centred superscript appears in the text at the place where the reading occurs. For example, at 20, b is centred between "debauching" and "the constituents"; the variant note reads "^Manuscript (by strictly legal means of course)". The interpretation is that the manuscript reads "debauching (by strictly legal means of course) the constituents", and that, as reported in the copy-text, Mill omitted the parenthesis. The parliamentary

Ixxii

Textual Introduction

speeches, again for reasons explained above, take Parliamentary Debates for copy-text, with a few variants noted from The Times and (for 1867) St. Stephen's Chronicle; these are based on the same principles as those in the public speeches. APPENDICES APPENDIX A gives the physical details about the manuscripts. Appendices B and C fill in the detail of Mill's parliamentary career by giving his questions as a member of Select Committees, and the origins, subjects, and dates of the petitions he presented. Appendix D contains the full manuscript texts of speeches that are represented in the text proper by printed sources. Appendix E calls attention to occasions when it is known that Mill spoke, but no record is extant of his remarks. Appendix F supplies the text of a manuscript speech that is in Mill's hand, but undoubtedly was prepared by his step-daughter, Helen Taylor, for her use. Appendix G lists and explains the textual emendations, while Appendix H is an index of persons and works cited in the text and Appendices B-D and F. Finally, there is an analytic Index, prepared by Dr. Jean O'Grady with her customary categorical and alphabetic skill. ABBREVIATIONS THE FOLLOWING short forms are used, mainly in the variant notes, the headnotes, and in Appendix H. To avoid confusion with "MS" signalling the Morning Star, "Manuscript" is spelled out in full. 35="Rationale of Representation" (1835) B^The Beehive CW=Collected Works ofJ.S. Mill CS=Chapters and Speeches on the Irish Land Question D&D=Dissertations and Discussions DN=Daily News DT=Daily Telegraph JP=Jamaica Papers JSM=John Stuart Mill MET=Manchester Examiner and Times MP=Morning Post MS=Morning Star P=a pamphlet P1=the 1st ed. of a pamphlet P2=the 2nd ed. of a pamphlet PD=Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

Textual Introduction

Ixxiii

PMG=Pall Mall Gazette PP=Parliamentary Papers R=Reasoner S=Standard SC=Mill's library in Somerville College, Oxford Scot=Scotsman SSC=St. Stephen's Chronicle TT=The Times W=Women's Suffrage: Great Meeting in Edinburgh in the Music Hall, on 12th January 1871, under the Auspices of the Edinburgh Branch of the National Society for Women's Suffrage (Edinburgh: printed Greig, 1871). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR PERMISSION to publish manuscript materials, we are indebted to the National Provincial Bank, residual legatees of Mary Taylor, Mill's step-granddaughter, and (for specific manuscripts) the British Library of Political and Economic Science, the Harvard University Library, and the Yale University Library. In addition to these, we are indebted to the librarians and staff of the British Library, the Institute of Historical Research (University of London), the Newspaper Library and the India Office Library and Records of the British Library, Somerville College Oxford, the University of London Library, the University of Toronto Library, and the Victoria University Library. As ever our work has been gladdened and lessened by the warming and unstinted aid of individuals, among the host, Robin Alston, Sue Grace, J.R. de J. Jackson, Trevor Lloyd, Ray Maycock, Mary S. Miller, the late Francis E. Mineka, Pamela G. Nunn, Walter O'Grady, Helene E. Roberts, and Ann Christine Robson. Among the always helpful members of the Editorial Committee we are especially indebted to J.B. Conacher and Ann P. Robson, the former a mentor and guide to both, the latter a source of wise advice appreciated by one and almost always heeded by the other. The generous financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada was essential to the preparation and production of these volumes. The staff of the Mill Project are part of the efficient and indeed material causes, especially the Senior Research Assistant, Marion Filipiuk, and the Post-doctoral Fellow, Jean O'Grady, with the Editorial Assistant Rea Wilmshurst, each of whom showed in her individual way the constant and dedicated watchfulness, the inventive intelligence, and not least the interest that make our work a pleasure. The part-time junior members, Jonathan Cutmore, Michele Green, Margaret Paternek, Jannifer Smith-Rubenzahl, Elizabeth King, Marion Halmos, John Huxley, and John Sipos, all contributed to our pleasure and the edition's profit.

This page intentionally left blank

PUBLIC AND PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES 1850-1873

This page intentionally left blank

November 1850 to July 1865 • 1. Secular Education AFTER 4 NOVEMBER, 1850? Fabian Society typescript, headed in ink, "Secular Education." The occasion is not known. Printed by Laski in his edition of Mill's Autobiography, pp. 326-30, with the comment, "Not delivered," and dated 1849 (no evidence given). Laski's dating is clearly wrong, as Mill refers to events later than 1849. There are no substantive differences between the two versions; the typescript is followed in accidentals.

SIR, the commencement at Manchester of a movement for a national education not under the control or management of either established or non-established clergy has already, it would seem, made no inconsiderable impression on the public, or else The Times has made a false move and miscalculated the signs of the coming public opinion; for already at the very beginning of the agitation that journal has discovered, what it did not find out in the case of the Corn Law League until the fourth or fifth year of its existence, that the thing is not merely a good thing, but what is so much better in the estimation of The Times, a thing destined to succeed.l The promoters doubtless thought no less, but they probably did not expect so early a recognition of their prospects. How much then it is to be lamented that an enterprise of so much promise should have been inaugurated by an act of truckling and compromise; that for the sake of conciliating people who are not to be conciliated and whom it ought not to have been an object to conciliate, the Association should have let itself be persuaded by Mr. Cobden, aided by some dissenting ministers, to sacrifice its distinctive flag, and instead of calling itself an Association for secular education should have sheltered its timidity under the ambiguous designation of unsectarian.2 'For its prediction of success for the movement for non-sectarian national education, see its leading article on the question, The Times, 4 Nov., 1850, p. 4. Its belated prediction of success for the Anti-Corn Law League (which was founded in 1839) is in a leader of 19 Dec., 1845, p. 4. 2 On 30 October, 1850, during a conference of the Lancaster Public School Association at which its name was changed to the National Public School Association, Richard Cobden (1804-65), the well-known free-trader, a founder of the anti-corn law campaign, successfully objected to the use of the word "secular" because it suggested "not religious" rather than "non-sectarian." See "Conference at the Mechanics Institution on Secular Education," The Times, 31 Oct., 1850, p. 5.

4

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 1

If this is only a change in words and means nothing it deserves no better name than that of deception; if it does mean anything, if by unsectarian is to be understood something different from secular education, the broad principle of religious freedom which was to be the foundation of this great educational movement is abandoned. In the debates of the Conference there was a good deal of misunderstanding, some of it I fear rather wilful on the part of Mr. Cobden and his supporters respecting the import of the word secular. There is no uncertainty about it. There is not a better defined word in the English language. Secular is whatever has reference to this life. Secular instruction is instruction respecting the concerns of this life. Secular subjects therefore are all subjects except religion. All the arts and sciences are secular knowledge. To say that secular means irreligious implies that all the arts and sciences are irreligious, and is very like saying that all professions except that of the law are illegal. There is a difference between irreligious and not religious, however it may suit the purposes of many persons to confound it. Now on the principles of religious freedom which we were led to believe that it was the purpose of this Association to accept, instruction on subjects not religious is as much the right of those who will not accept religious instruction as of those who will. To know the laws of the physical world, the properties of their own bodies and minds, the past history of their species, is as much a benefit to the Jew, the Mussulman, the Deist, the Atheist, as to the orthodox churchman; and it is as iniquitous to withhold it from them. Education provided by the public must be education for all, and to be education for all it must be purely secular education. When, then, the Association refuses to say that their education is secular but are willing to say that it shall be unsectarian, what do they mean? Doubtless that it is still to be exclusive, though in a minor degree. That religion is to be taught, but not sectarian religion. That they are not to have Church of England teaching, or Catholic teaching, or Baptist, or Methodist, or Unitarian teaching, but I suppose Christian teaching; that is, whatever common elements of Christianity are supposed to be found in all these sects alike. How far this is likely to conciliate the various classes of sectarians the Association will probably hear loudly enough from the sectarians themselves. I am much mistaken if they will be at all thankful for any religious teaching which expresses no opinion on a subject on which Christians differ in opinion, or if the substratum of universal Christianity which it is proposed to teach will appear to them at all different from Deism. But this is their concern. I take higher ground. I maintain that if you could carry all the sects with you by your compromise you would have effected nothing but a compact among the more powerful bodies to cease fighting among themselves and join in trampling on the weaker. You would have contrived a national education not for all, but for believers in the New Testament. The Jew and the unbeliever would be excluded from it though they would not the less be required to pay for it. I do not hear that their money is to be refused, that they are to be exempted from the school

March 1864

Cooperation

5

rate. Religious exclusion and inequality are as odious when practised towards minorities as majorities. I thought the principle of the Association had been that of justice, but I find it is that of being unjust to those alone who are not numerous enough to resist. I cannot help remarking how much less confidence professed Christians appear to have in the truth and power of their principles than infidels generally have in theirs. Disbelievers in Christianity almost always hail the advance of public intelligence as favourable to them; the more informed and exercised a mind is, the more likely they account it to adopt their opinions: but I cannot find a trace of similar confidence in most of the professedly religious. If they hold their belief with the same full assurance as the others their disbelief, surely infidels and the children of infidels are those to whom, even more than to any others, they would be eager to give all instruction which could render their minds more capable of pursuing and recognising truth. A person is without religious belief, or in other words is in their estimation in a state of the most pitiable, the most calamitous ignorance by which anyone can possibly be afflicted, and for this reason they refuse him instruction, they refuse him knowledge and the cultivation and discipline of the intellect, as if they thought that mental cultivation could not possibly be favourable to Christianity, unless the mind is first strongly prepossessed on its behalf. Such sentiments as these are not complimentary to Christianity nor to the sincerity of their belief in it. Its greatest enemy could say nothing worse of it than that either ignorance or early prejudice is the soil it must have to flourish in, and that to instruct unbelievers, to make them rational and thinking beings, is but to confirm them in unbelief. I hoped that the founders of the Lancaster Association3 had been persons who thought that mental cultivation opens the mind to all truth, whether expressly taught or not. Let us hope that this conviction is still theirs and will guide and animate their labours; but they have missed through pusillanimity a splendid opportunity for inscribing it on their banner and proclaiming it in the face of the world.

2. Cooperation 28 MARCH, 1864 The Reasoner (then subtitled The Secular World and Social Economist), XXVIII (1 May, 1864), 116-17. Dated in text "Easter Monday." Headed: "Great Co-operative Soiree in London. / Speech of Mr. J.S. Mill." Also in The Co-operator, No. 52 (June 1864), pp. 3

Two of the main founders of the Association were active at the meeting of 30 October: Samuel Lucas (1811-65), author of works on education, and William McKerrow (1803-78), a liberal Presbyterian minister.

6

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 2

4-6. Both journals were the property of George Jacob Holyoake, who says, in his J.S. Mill as Some of the Working Classes Knew Him (London: Triibner, 1873), p. 5: "The first time [ Mill ] appeared at a public meeting and made a speech was at the Whittington Club, before a large tea gathering of co-operators with their wives and families. I was asked to urge him to speak. . . . [H]ad it not been for the evidence of so many women taking part in co-operative economy, . . . he, I suspect had not spoken then." The organizing group was the London Society for Promoting Co-operation. The Chair was taken by Edward Vansittart Neale. His speech was followed by those of Lloyd Jones, Dr. Bowker, and Henry Pitman (editor of The Reasoner}. Then Mill spoke.

i HAVE VERY LITTLE TO SAY, but that little will be to express my sense of the great value of such societies as this is, as a central organ in London, and possibly for much more than London. It appears to me that the value of such a society consists not solely or principally in the great advantage it affords, to bring into a single focus the interests and efforts of its members, so as to carry on, as this purposes to do, that joint operation for their common benefit; it is not this merely which seems to me to constitute the principal value of a central organ like this—but it is also to be a moral organ, to keep before the eyes of co-operators true principles. What does this mean? Does it mean merely a contrivance by which a small number of persons, or a small number of societies can eat or drink that which is wholesome, and eat and drink it at the lowest price? This is certainly not an unimportant thing; but this is a small thing, and co-operation is a great thing. No doubt it is very desirable, and, indeed, important, that some hundreds of persons or societies should improve their condition—if they should do so, I would be very glad, and should greatly rejoice at it,—and that they should purchase what they want more cheaply and of better quality than they have been accustomed to do. But this is not co-operation. It is not co-operation between a few persons to join for the purpose of making a profit from cheap purchases, by which one, two, or more might benefit. Co-operation is where the whole of the produce is divided. °We want, not to benefit a few, but to elevate the whole working class.a This principle has been so well stated before, that I should not venture to insist upon it after the admirable manner in which it has been put by previous speakers; but it is absolutely necessary to insist upon it, and it is impossible to insist upon it too strongly. It is not ^genuine6 co-operation, where any of the "co-operators are excluded from the division of the whole produce0. Anything else than such participation in the produce, is nothing more than raising working people into the position of employers. Now, what is wanted is, that the whole of the working classes should partake of the profits of labour. (Cheers.) We want that the whole produce of labour shall, as far as the nature of things will permit, be divided among the a-a+C b-b+C C C

~C

producers are excluded from the profits

March 1864

Cooperation

1

workers. The nature, however, of things ^fixes certain limitations. But the whole of the produce of labour can be divided amongst the workers only to the extent that it is obtained from d their own industry. So long as profits are thus obtained, and the workers are in possession of capital, they will naturally receive,—as they are entitled to receive,—the whole of the produce; but as long as they are not in possession of means sufficient, or cannot employ their labour, they will need to be aided by greater means—by the capital of those ewho, ore whose progenitors have accumulated it by their labour for acquired it by their intelligence. Those^ who furnish a portion of the capital, will, no doubt, be entitled to a portion of the profit. The earnings of capital are not large—its remuneration is not great. Three per cent, is but little for its use; that is the rate with the Government, where the security is the best given. Capitalists are satisfied with four per cent, from some of the railway companies, where the security is not so good. This is all that can be obtained for the risk implied in its investment. Now, we are not to suppose that co-operation may not be made as safe as railway companies. Indeed, you may ultimately hope that the workers will be able to divide among themselves the whole produce, with the exception of the small amount I have mentioned. Three, or four, or five per cent., five pounds out of £100, is but a small deduction. Who can say that this is too much, or that it is unreasonable for the use of capital to be applied to the purposes of labour? Few societies would think of offering a less consideration gthan that to their own members to induce them to save, and put their savings into the joint concern^. Many people think, although the co-operatives have very judiciously and very rightly shown no hostility to any other class—no desire on their own account to bring any other class down, yet that their aims are unattainable. A difficulty is felt; and it is said, what is to become of capital, if you succeed to the extent you hope for? In the first place, it is necessary to state that this is a gradual process; for as long as there are ''any working people who are dishonest—as long as there are any who are idle, who are intemperate, who are spendthrifts—so long there will be working people who are only fit to beh receivers of wages. We are enabled to judge of those who are honest and trustworthy in the same way as we are to judge who is untrustworthy, so that, while we ought not to give our confidence rashly, there is also a danger in withdrawing it rashly when it has been once reasonably, and after due consideration, given. Here are two dangers; and it follows, that, so long as there are persons unworthy to take a part in great d d ~ C which is too strong for all of us, will not allow that the labourers should have the whole produce of labour, unless they own the capital; and they can only do this when they have acquired it by

e-e+ C

ff

' C and intelligence, and accumulated it by their own frugality; and those ~ C] R for it than that H H ~ C] R working people, there will also be the idle, the imprudent, and the spendthrift, who will remain the g g

8

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 2

operations, there must be persons receivers of wages. 'It is only when the entire working class shall be as much improved as the best portion of them now are that our hopes will be realised, and the whole mass of the people will practically adopt co-operation.' There is no fear that there will be any disturbance of existing interests, that there will be any disposition to avoid taking part in the working out the problem. Nothing will last any longer than the circumstances which necessitate it. There is no fear that co-operation will spread faster than the co-operators 'improve7. It is not an easy thing. It is certain there will be, for many generations a great scope for labour in common way of wages. It is only in proportion as the lower grades rise to the level of the higher classes—it is only in proportion as that great change takes place, that the advantages of co-operation will be individually felt; and persons will become ashamed of not taking their due share in the work; and no difficulty whatever will be felt of obtaining capital to co-operate with labour. This will be a new millennium, which it requires but little knowledge to comprehend as entirely practical. We want, then, the co-operation of all workers—such ought to be our object. We ought to proceed towards this cautiously and tentatively, and never attempt to do an act which we feel will not be recommended by right principle. We ought to be content with steady persevering co-operation. I do not mean that the industrial or commercial operations of co-operatives can or ought to be carried on on some gigantic scale; for all such operations as you contemplate are in their essence limited. That which can be carried on from your side, must be necessarily small. The duty of all such co-operative societies is first, that they should help one another, that they should encourage those who have gone first, and shown the others the way to go,—how to succeed, and the sort of success worth having. (Cheers.) How to succeed will be learned by degrees. Co-operators will learn by practice. It is not an easy thing: if it had been, people would not have waited until this period for it. It cannot advance further than the minds and morals of the people engaged in it *nor faster than honest and competent men and women can find how* to manage its concerns. It cannot progress faster than the 'ability to distinguish those who are trustworthy, and the willingness to trust them when found'. These are the points on which co-operators are most in danger of failing—in the first place in not having competent and trustworthy managers; and, in the next place, to have them and not to know them. (Hear.) Then, what is the success to be kept in view! wBut when this great improvement in the mind of the people has taken place,—when all have become capable of co-operation, and most have adopted it,—I believe that the ' 'C] R We are looking forward to the time when the whole mass of the people shall adopt the true principles of co-operation. J ~JC] R desire *~*C , than honest men and women can be found '~'C] R power to trust a person when you find him trustworthy m-m

+C

April 1864

Corruption at Elections

9

owners of property will be ashamed to be the only persons who do not take their share in the useful work of the world, and will be willing to invest their capital in co-operative societies, receiving a fair interest for its use. This is the millennium towards which we should strive. I do not mean that the industrial or commercial operations of particular co-operative societies can or ought to be carried out upon some gigantic scale. All that such societies as this can do, is in its nature limited. But this co-operative societies can do—they can help one another. Those who have succeeded can encourage and show the way to others; and they can keep constantly in view both the way to succeed, and the sort of success worth having. How to succeed will be learned by degrees—co-operators will learn by practice.m I confess, if there were no other object in view than that persons who are original members should make themselves a little better off, I should not be addressing you to-night. I should be glad of it. I should be rejoiced at any person being improved in his position. This, however, is a small thing compared with co-operation. What we ought to aim at is, not to enable a small number of persons to rise, but all workers to share in the profits of labour. It all depends upon keeping right principles in view. All depends upon the disposition to put into practice the excellent principles that Mr. Lloyd Jones has expounded.' I believe there are many co-operators who are fully imbued with these principles, and I believe that the number is increasing. It is because I believe this n—and therefore feel assured that" co-operation will ultimately regenerate the masses of the country, and through them society itself, that I have ventured to address you this evening. (Loud cheering.) [ Following Mill, the Rev. Henry Solly (a long-time friend of Mill's family) and George Jacob Holyoake spoke. ]

3. Corruption at Elections 4 APRIL, 1864 In Frederick D. Maurice, Corruption at Elections (London: Faithful, 1864), pp. 14-16. Briefly noted in the Daily Telegraph, 5 April, 1864 (copied in the Beehive, 9 April, p. 2), and the Law Times, 16 April, p. 277. The Department of Jurisprudence and Amendment of the Law, a section of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, met at its offices, 3 Waterloo Place, Edwin Chadwick (1800-91) in the Chair, to consider the standing committee's report on the paper by William Dougal Christie (1816-74), which is included, with Chadwick's speech, in the pamphlet and was issued as Suggestions for an Organization for the Restraint of Corruption at Elections (London: N.A.P.S.S., 1864). 'The speech by Lloyd Jones (1811-86), socialist activist and author, which preceded Mill's, is given in The Reasoner, XXVIII, 116. "~"C]

R

, that I believe

10

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 3

After mention by G.W. Hastings of registration in Ireland, letters were read in support of the report, and then Mill spoke.

IT is UNNECESSARY HERE, though it might be necessary in some other places, to insist upon the magnitude of the evil to which this report relates. What is at stake is nothing less than the vitality of representative government. If the majority or a preponderant portion of the House of Commons represented only their own pockets, we should, indeed, have what Mr. Disraeli called a Venetian Constitution,1 and that in a very bad form. It would be a great mistake to suppose that we have seen the worst of this evil. I am persuaded that we are only in the beginning of it. When we consider the rapid growth of manufacture and commerce, and the number of persons that are constantly becoming wealthy, whose sole ambition is to obtain what wealth alone has not yet given them, namely, position, we see what a rapidly increasing number of persons there is to whom it is worth any money to acquire the only thing purchaseable by money, which will give them the grand object of their desire. I have been told by one who has filled a distinguished position in Australia2 that there were within his knowledge five or six persons, Australians, who were only waiting for a general election to offer themselves to English constituencies, with the object I have mentioned. I mean nothing uncomplimentary to Australians. I believe them to be a very intelligent community. But the instance suggests the class of persons who make this evil an increasing one—the vulgar rich, to whom it is worth while to spend any amount of money for the sake of station in society. Persons of established position are often wishing to spend money corruptly, but there is a limit to the amount they will spend. They can gain comparatively little in importance by lavish expenditure. Their position is made, and they may even impair instead of advancing it if they spend too lavishly. But to a person of the other kind a seat in Parliament may be worth half his fortune. Now I think the Society must feel that, saving exceptions (admirable exceptions there are sure to be,) this class of persons, whether they act the part of flunkies, crouching at the feet of the aristocracy, or of envious demagogues anxious to bring them down, or, as will often be the case, are ready to turn from either of these parts to the other, according to convenience, are about the most undesirable and the most dangerous class of persons who can obtain admission to Parliament. It may be thought that the only evils to be apprehended from them are those of what may be called plutocracy; but, in reality, we should 'See Vindication of the English Constitution, in a Letter to a Noble and Learned Lord (London: Saunders and Otley, 1835), pp. 139, 168, 173, and 176, and Coningsby; or, The New Generation, 3 vols. (London: Colburn, 1844), Vol. II, pp. 229-31, and Vol. Ill, pp. 128-30, by Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81), Conservative statesman and author. 2 Possibly Charles Gavan Duffy (1816-1903), Irish nationalist, a correspondent of Mill's, who emigrated to Australia in 1855, and had served in the Victoria government as Minister of Land and Works; or perhaps Henry Samuel Chapman (1803-81), another correspondent, who had been a politician and lawyer in Australia since 1851.

April 1865

Hare's Plan for the Metropolis

11

have those of democracy too, for if the costliness of elections limited the choice to such men, the electors, finding no one to vote for whom they could trust to act according to his own judgment and conscience, if they themselves have any regard to their own particular opinions, will bind them strictly by pledges to abide by subjects which the electors care about. The House of Commons would be an assembly of delegates, while on other subjects the member would vote according to his own interests or caprice, or according to the questions in which he desired to curry favour. Now as to the remedying of this, I am not one of those who think that legal means would necessarily be insufficient. I think there are legal measures which could be made effectual, but only if backed by a moral demonstration of a sufficient number of honest men, who would league themselves together against the political crime, expressly or virtually pledging themselves both to abstain from it personally, and to use all their influence to prevent it. They would probably be able to obtain from the Legislature any such enactments as may be desirable, while they would supply the only powers which could enable those enactments to be enforced. Great credit is due to Mr. Christie for having, as it seems to me, "hit the right nail on the head." As to the persons who should take this in hand, I think there is none so fit as this Society. °No individual, and no self-elected committee could address themselves to the leaders of parties, and to influential politicians throughout the country, nor would they be listened to if they did. But this Association, not to mention the larger society of which it now forms a part, could address itself to anyone.a [Mill concluded by moving the reception and adoption of the report; the motion was seconded by Frederick Hill, and adopted after discussion. A report on Walter Crofton' s paper on the convict question was read, received, and adopted, and the meeting adjourned. ]

4. Hare's Plan for the Metropolis 10 APRIL, 1865 Morning Star, 11 April, 1865, p. 3. Headed: "Corrupt and Pernicious Influences at Elections." Also reported in summary form on 11 April in the Daily News, and The Times, and (apparently copied from the Morning Star) in The National Reformer, 16 April, pp. 250-1. The well-attended evening meeting, with many women members present, of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science and the Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law was held in the Rooms, Adam Street, Adelphi, with Lord Stanley in the Chair. The principal speaker was Thomas Hare (1806-91), author of A Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal (London: Longman, et al., a-ar °DT,B The Law Amendment Society had the power of aiding this, not being a self-elected body, but deriving authority from the eminence of its members.

12

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 4

1859), which had a profound effect on Mill (see Autobiography, CW, 1,262-3). Hare read his paper, "On such an organisation of the metropolitan elections as would call into exercise the knowledge and judgment of the constituencies, and as far as possible discourage all corrupt and pernicious influences" (The Times, 11 Apr., p. 10). In the ensuing discussion seven members spoke before Mill.

MR. j. STUART MILL dilated at much length on the details of the plan submitted by Mr. Hare, and pointed out that the objections raised to it were caused by a misapprehension on the part of those who, either through a want of interest in the matter or a determination to adhere to the present state of things, neglected to pay sufficient attention, so as to properly understand it. alt seemed to him that the plan proposed was as simple as possible, easy to be understood, and if given a trial would be found to be effectual and salutary in its results. Mr. Mill then referred in caustic terms to the manner in which contending parties under the present system get themselves represented, dwelling particularly on the part the great clubs play during election times.a *Tor instance, he remarked that no sooner a vacancy for a Liberal or Conservative candidate occurred than some one went down from a club with 3,000/. or 4,000/. at his back, saying, "I am a Liberal," "I am a Conservative," as the case might be. b But by the plan proposed by Mr. Hare this system would be checked. cBoobies would no longer be able to go down to constituencies with any chance of success; and besides, public interest would be elicited to a far greater extent than at present.c dHe referred to the injustice of the existing system, in leaving the minority, say 19,000 out of 40,000—the election being carried by 21,000—practically unrepresented.d He considered the proposition of Mr. Hare both feasible and just, and he trusted the discussion that evening, and a little better understanding of the plan submitted, would have the effect of gaining for it that public support it so well deserved, and that the result would be that it would at all events get a fair trial. This evil would be remedied by the a ~°DN It was the great merit of the plan that it did not contemplate the elected representing only the opinions and interests of those who voted for them. It would not leave the House of Commons the representatives of only three shades of opinion—whig, tory, and radical—but the opinions of the whole country would be represented, and property as well as numbers. The voter would no longer be compelled to vote for any booby sent down by the dominant party. ] TT The great beauty and merit of Mr. Hare's system was that it would not leave the election to mere political opinion—to the three shades of opinion, Whig, Tory, and Radical. The voters would have the choice of the whole country—of all the eminent men in the country. fc -*TT The clubs would no longer be able to send a mere booby with 3,000/. or 4,000/. in his pocket. C ~1)N Boobies would no longer be sent down as candidates—men of merit would be sent down, or if they were not, the constituencies would find men of merit for themselves.] TT If they did not send down a man of merit, the electors would choose a man of merit for themselves. At present the Liberals must vote for the Liberal candidate, and the Tories for the Tory candidate, though each of the two candidates might be nothing more than a booby. d d ~ +DN e e ~ + DN] TT It was enough to put one out of temper to hear intelligent gentlemen say they could not understand Mr. Hare's plan. It was not anything like so difficult as the multiplication table.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [1]

13

proposed plan, which, in answer to the objection that it was complex and impracticable, he said was much more simple than the multiplication table, and might be easily understood by anyone who took the trouble to examine it fairly. Mr. Hare's plan, he knew, was anxiously thought of by some of the leaders of the working classes, and he should not be surprised if, before long, it became part of their political programme. He claimed for it the merit of giving ascendancy to none and justice to a\l.e He considered that the metropolitan constituencies offered a good field for the purpose of trying the experiment, and he urged the desirability of doing so. [After discussion, Hare replied. A motion of thanks to Hare, calling for his paper to be printed and circulated to members, was passed, and the meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the Chair. ]

5. The Westminster Election of 1865 [ 1 ] 3 JULY, 1865 Daily Telegraph, 4 July, 1865, p. 3. Headed: "Election Intelligence. / Westminster." The evening meeting was called by Mill's general committee in one of the large rooms of St. James's Hall. This was Mill's first speech on his return to England to stand for election, and, as he indicates, it was impromptu; he had prepared for a speech on the 5th (see No. 6). This occasion clearly involved a surprise: "although it was only what was termed a meeting of the general committee, it was to all intents and purposes an open meeting, between 300 and 400 gentlemen being present" (Daily News). There "were present on the platform most of the leading Reformers not only of the city of Westminster but of the metropolis at large." Though many were present "who formed no part of the body invited to meet Mr. Mill, . . . the proceedings throughout were undisturbed" (The Times). "The chair was taken at eight o'clock by Dr. Brewer [William Brewer (d. 1881), a prominent physician and medical writer, a consistent supporter of Mill], who introduced Mr. Mill in a highly eulogistic speech." Then Mill, who "was received with great cheering," spoke.

GENTLEMEN, I can most sincerely say that our excellent chairman has not in the slightest degree exaggerated anything in what he has said respecting my want of preparation for a speech to-night. I did not at all expect that I should be called upon to make an address. I understood there was a day appointed when I should make a speech and express my sentiments as far as you desire to hear them. I thought that I should only be expected to meet you to-night as friends, and for the purpose of joining in friendly conversation—(hear, hear)—and thus have the opportunity of giving any explanation that you might wish respecting my political views—upon points which I have not sufficiently made known, or may not have sufficiently explained. For this, I was ready, but I was not in the least aware of the public character of this meeting (referring to the reporters). Therefore, I hope you will,

14

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 5

in consideration of my want of experience in such cases, excuse the imperfections which must necessarily arise from my want of preparation. (Applause.) Let me begin by saying, that if our chairman has not made any exaggeration in that respect, I am afraid that he has in many others, for I do not know how it will be possible that I should fulfil all that he has said respecting me, in case I have the honour of being elected your representative. I say it will be difficult for me to fulfil the high expectations which must have been raised—(no)—by the friendly and favourable opinions which have been uttered respecting me throughout the whole of this election—friendly and favourable opinions, too, from quarters whence I could little expect them. The mere fact of the number of distinguished persons who have consented to have their names placed on my committee is a matter for which personally I cannot possibly be too thankful. It is a most distinguished honour itself, besides the fact of having been selected by such a body, as a candidate for the important post of representing Westminster, perhaps the most important seat in the whole House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) A higher honour than this can scarcely be conceived. But, though one of the highest, it ought not to be considered as a favour. (Applause.) If it be considered as a favour I have no right to ask it °, and the electors would have no right to confer ita. It is not a favour; it is an onerous duty which you are anxious to impose upon me, and which I cannot but feel flattered to the highest degree at being thought worthy and capable of properly holding. (Cheers.) If I should receive your support and be elected to the House of Commons, I feel that I must fall below your expectations. (Loud cries of No, no.) Notwithstanding the utmost exertions which I could make, I feel that I must necessarily remain behind. (Renewed cries of No, no.) One thing I will say, no one can feel stronger than I do the importance of that part in the contest which has nothing to do with me individually—and that is purity of election. (Cheers.) I am obliged to say that you give me too much honour when you bestow on me the glory of that. If you are victorious, the praise will not be mine, the praise will be wholly yours. (No.) It is all very well for me to say how desirable are these things, but you have to accomplish them, therefore to you will be the credit. You have to maintain the fight to elect me on what you suppose are my qualifications, and which are my only recommendation. I am a person almost entirely unknown to you except through my writings. You have not only undertaken to elect a person on these grounds, but you have also undertaken to do it and bear all those expenses— ordinary expenses—which ought never to be borne by the candidate. (Great applause.) For those charges which are legitimate ought to be borne by the public or the municipal body—(hear, hear)—and those which are illegitimate ought never to be incurred at all. (Cheers.) You have undertaken to abstain from the illegitimate expenses, and to bear the burden of the legitimate. (Yes, and cheerfully.) This you have performed, and not only so, but you have done it a

-"+DN

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [ 1]

15

having to bear up against a candidature which is conducted on opposite principles1—a candidature conducted on principles of the most lavish expenditure. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) And neither is this all, for you have not only to contend against this, but you have to evoke a spirit in the constituency which shall rise superior to those opposite principles, and to a level with those which you have adopted. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the praise will be yours. It is easy for me to say that I will use no illegitimate or even ^what were usually considered* legitimate means. Yours will be the deserved credit. I do not think that it is right a candidate should make any other pledge than a complete sincerity cand that he ought not to canvass the electors c. (Hear, hear.) It costs me nothing to say this, but it costs you much, for it is you who have to bear the burden. (Cheers.) Whatever honour I may receive, it will be you who have gained it for me. I cannot help thanking the worthy chairman for having paid the tribute he has done to one to whom in my early life I owe everything—to my father (applause)—a man who has done more, infinitely more, for the public cause than I can ever do; because he lived in times when there were few to do it—when the fact of being Liberal—Liberalism which was worth anything—stood most seriously in the way of a man's advancement in life, and especially of men who had their bread to gain.2 He had to win his bread by his pen, and had to do this at a time when his opinions were such as necessarily to produce not only the ill-favour of the chiefs and recognised leaders of political parties, but to compromise him with all the powerful classes of this country. I say he did this at a time when there were very few to favour or praise him. Nothing that I can do will compare with this—it will not have a tenth, a hundredth, a thousandth part of the merit which belongs to those who went before me. To him I am indebted for everything which has made me at all capable of following in his footsteps. As it is, I may say, if there is a time when a person may be allowed to speak of himself, it is on such an occasion as this. I may perhaps say something which may make you better satisfied with me, when I affirm that I have sat by the cradle of all the great political reforms of this and the last generation; and I have not only sat by the cradle of these reforms, but before I was out of my teens I was up and stirring, and writing about them. (Hear.} I have stood by these reforms, which now count followers by millions when their followers did not count tens of thousands, nay, not thousands, nor hundreds. (Cheers.} When they only counted tens I was 'i.e., that of William Henry Smith (1825-91), proprietor and son of the founder of W.H. Smith and Son, who was running as a Liberal Conservative, or Conservative Liberal (both labels were used). 2 James Mill (1772-1836), an active propagandist for radical Benthamite and Ricardian views through articles, pamphlets, books, and personal influence, had lived by his pen until he joined the East India Company in 1819, rising to the head of the Examiner's Office, a position J.S. Mill also attained. fc-6+DN c-c

+DN

16

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 5

amongst them. Nay, I may say, when their followers only counted units—when that which is now the universally received principle respecting the government of our colonies was not always so. I can recollect the time when there were two men amongst the active political writers of this country who recognised it—two men, Mr. Roebuck and myself.3 (Great cheering.) I can remember another thing which many of you may—which, indeed, you must have heard—the Wakefield doctrine for finding funds for supplying the population of the colonies.4 The Wakefield principle is to put a price on uncultivated land, and employ the proceeds in paying the expenses of immigration d, which would prevent them from settling down as Irish cottiersd\ the price, at the same time, being an obstacle to the too great dispersion of the inhabitants. That was in 1831, when there were three persons who held that—Mr. Wakefield, the inventor or discoverer, myself, and one other.5 And we so worked the principle that in four years a new colony, South Australia, was founded on the principle. (Cheers.) eln a few years afterwards it was a principle which was very greatly extended over all our Australian Colonies. From that date, long before the discovery of the gold mines, these colonies entered upon a career of prosperity which has continued, and those colonies now constitute one of the most splendid offshoots of the English people.e (Cheers.) I have said this for the purpose of showing I have never been one of those who have left difficult things for others. (Cheers.) I have never been one of those who have left things alone when they have been an uphill fight, but I have left them when the fight was no longer difficult. When the thing was prosperous I have left it for a time, and have said, "This matter no longer requires me," and I have therefore transferred my services to those who did. (Loud cheers.) I have left that prosperous thing, and have turned to something else—to something that was still a crotchet, still an abstraction, still something that no practical person would battle with. (Hear, hear.) For I have been accustomed even in my life—and all history confirms the same thing—I have been accustomed to see that the crotchet of 3 John Arthur Roebuck (1801-79) had been a close associate—initially a disciple—of Mill's in the late 1820s; he was a leading Radical in the House of Commons after the Reform Act of 1832. Though personally estranged from Mill during most of their adult lives, he remained an admirer, joined in the movement for Mill's election, and offered him advice on effective performance in the Commons. 4 See, e.g., Edward Gibbon Wakefield, Plan of a Company to Be Established for the Purpose of Founding a Colony in Southern Australia (London: Ridgway, 1831). 5 Robert Gouger (1802-66), early and ardent advocate of Wakefield's scheme; for evidence that he is the one intended, see Wakefield, A Letterfrom Sydney (London: Cross, etal., 1829), pp. 169-80, and Appendix, pp. iii-xxiv. d rf ~ +DN] TT , and the application of this prevented the people from settling on the land like Irish cottiers e e ~ DN After that, but not to a very great extent, it was applied to all our Australian colonies, and some of the colonies which had languished revived. Western Australia, which had been a failure, had entered upon a career of prosperity.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [I]

17

to-day, the crotchet of one generation, becomes the truth of the next and the truism of the one after. (Cheers. ) I have lived long enough to see the three steps of this process taking place with a number of my opinions . I have told you a number of my crotchets now, and perhaps they will be truisms by-and-by. (Hear, hear. ) I think, gentlemen, as all of you have consented to be members of my committee, I may take it for granted that you have a sufficient general idea of my political opinions for you to be aware what course I should take if you do me the honour of electing me. (We will.) But if there is anything respecting which you wish to know more, or anything upon which you would wish further explanation, and to ask my sentiments, here I am to answer. (Hear, hear. ) Coming, as I said, unprepared, I have stated that which came uppermost in my mind. It rests with you upon what other topic I shall speak. If any of you will do me the honour of putting any question, I will endeavour to answer it. (Cheers. ) Mr. Probyn said that a rumour had been circulated by the Conservatives that Mr. Mill did not intend to go to the poll. ?This was utterly false ; for not only did they intend to go to the poll, but they believed by next Tuesday night that Mr. Mill would be one of the members for Westminster. ( Cheers. )f He would simply venture to mention the American question as one upon which he would wish to ask Mr. Mill to give them some little explanation — viz. , with respect to the doctrine of non-intervention. He read a paper of Mr. Mill' s, which in 1857 was published in Eraser's Magazine, and which well pleased him.6 Its doctrine was that we as a country ought not to intervene in the domestic, in the purely internal events which occurred in any particular country, whatever our sympathies might be; but this did not preclude our interfering in the affairs of the continent when any one power or any two by their attitude or acts jeopardised a third power, and which might be a free power. In that case we ought to interfere for the sake of freedom, and in so doing we did not contravene the real doctrine of non-intervention. Mr. Mill said that this was a correct quotation from his writings. gHe did not think it was possible for a nation more than an individual to say that if it should cost anything, it would not help people who were struggling in a good cause. He thought intervention was generally wrong, not on account of the nation interfering, but of the nation with which it interfered. He thought every nation was the best judge of its own affairs. g (Cheers. ) Professor Masson strongly advocated the claims of Mr. Mill. 6 "A Few Words on Non-intervention," Eraser's Magazine, LX (Dec. 1859), 766-76 (CW, Vol. XXI, pp. 109-24).

f ^DN He assured the electors that he would poll to the last hour, and that he would then be found at its head. (Loud cheers.) g ~*DN] DT He thought a people were much the best judges of their own internal affairs but this spirit of non-intervention did not apply in the case which had been put forward.] TT [He] considered no nation should interfere in the internal affairs of another nation; but that when a despotic government interfered with a nation which desired to be free, then a free country would be in duty bound to interfere on the side of right.

18

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 6

A gentleman in the body of the room asked the honourable candidate's views respecting Church and State and the Maynooth grant.1 Mr. Mill said that as he had said before he would not give a pledge; but this would not prevent him from stating what was his sincere opinion. His sincere opinion was that it was best that Church and State should be perfectly distinct. He was against all connection between Church and State. As things stood, he did not think this was a practicable object. ^He thought their object should be to exercise all the influence the State had over the Church, to improve its spirit.h He thought most present would agree with him that the State was considerably more Liberal than the Church. (Cheers.} There had been occasions on which the State had tended to corrupt the Church, but at present matters stood the other way.' He had a great opinion that at present those who held the most liberal sentiments—and by liberal he did not mean lax, but who took the most Christian view of religion—had a much greater chance of being in the highest places of the Church than if the Church were separated from the State. Respecting the Maynooth grant, he should be quite ready to discontinue it as soon as no State endowment was granted to any other religion. (Hear, hear.} As long as there was, and especially that ^utterly condemnable7 body, the Irish Church Establishment—(hear, hear}—he should think it a very great shame to take away from the religion of the body of the people the small pittance which they were allowed. ( (Applause.} k No resolutions were moved, and the proceedings concluded by the announcement of a series of meetings which Mr. Mill would attend. *8

6. The Westminster Election of 1865 [2] 5 JULY, 1865 Morning Star, 6 July, 1865, p. 2. Headed: "Election Intelligence. / Meeting of Mr. J.S. Mill with the Electors of Westminster. " The speech exists in a shorter version in manuscript (Mill-Taylor Collection, printed in Appendix D), and was reported fully on 6 July also in the Daily Telegraph, the Daily News, and The Times (the last in the third person). The meeting was held in St. James's Hall in the evening. "A considerable time before the hour for the commencement of the meeting the hall was crowded to excess by an audience, a large portion of whom seemed to be electors. The meeting displayed a feature not common 7

8 & 9 Victoria, c. 25 (1845) provided Maynooth College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland, with a special building grant of £30,000, and increased its annual subsidy from £9,000 to £26,000. 8 SeeNos. 6,7, 8, and 10. *-*+DN '-'+DN J-/ DN anomalous and contemptible *~*DN] DT The Committee then proceeded with private business.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [2]

19

at election assemblies. Both side galleries were occupied by ladies, who appeared to take a warm interest in the proceedings. "(Morning Star.) Edwin Lankester (1814-74), surgeon, coroner for central Middlesex, and professor of natural history, long known to Mill, was in the Chair. He said "it gave him great pleasure in introducing Mr. John Stuart Mill as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of the ancient city of Westminster. (Cheers.) Mr. Mill was not unknown to them by name; he was not unknown to the people of England by reputation. (Hear.) He was known wherever the interests of humanity lay deep in the hearts of men, wherever progress and civilisation formed an element in the thoughts of men. (Hear, hear.)" (Morning Star.) "They saw before them the great philosopher of the day, and he should have been still better pleased if they could have elected him without seeing him" (Daily News). "They would find that Mr. Mill was not an advocate of chimerical theories as had been represented, but a man of large and practical views. He was a great politician and a great practical philosopher, ["and though some of his ideas were termed crotchets, they would turn out to be the seed from which they would hereafter have abundant results" (Daily News)]; and he trusted they would not from any imaginary difference of religious views push him from the pedestal on which he now stood. (Cheers.) The opposition to Mr. Mill on account of his religious opinions was disgraceful to Westminster. (Loud and prolonged cheers.)" He mentioned the "great religious teachers of the day": Charles Kingsley (1819-75), Anglican priest and author; Frederick Denison Maurice (1805-72), also priest and author, an acquaintance of Mill's since the 1820s; Connop Thirlwall( 1797-1875), historian and Bishop of St. David's since 1840, also known to Mill since the 1820s; and Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815-81), author and professor of ecclesiastical history at Oxford, Dean of Westminster since 1864: all had publicly expressed support for Mill's candidature, in the face of his anti-Church attitudes. Those men, Lankester said, "had perfect confidence in his opinions; and he hoped therefore that they would away with the wickedness and uncharitableness which sought to reject Mr. Mill on account of his religious views. (Loud cheers.)" (Morning Star.) "Mr. Mill, on rising to address the meeting, was received with the utmost enthusiasm. The people rose en masse, and waved their hats and cheered, and again and again renewed the cheers. When silence was restored" (The Times), Mill spoke. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, it is probable that many persons present desire that I should explain why I have hitherto abstained from all the ordinary practices of candidates, and from appearing at public meetings of the electors. My reasons for doing so have been stated in the letter in which I consented to be made a candidate;' but that is no reason why I should not repeat them here. When I stated in my letter that for my own sake I should not desire to sit in Parliament, I meant what I said. I have no personal objects to be promoted by it. It is a great sacrifice of my personal tastes and pursuits, and of that liberty which I value the more because I have only recently acquired it after a life spent in the restraints and confinements of a public office; for, as you may not perhaps know it, and as many people think that a writer of books, like myself, cannot possibly have any practical knowledge of business, it is a fact that I have passed amany hours of every day for a thirty-five years in the 'To James Beal (7 Mar., 1865), published inter alia in the Daily News, 23 Mar., p. 1 (CW, Vol. XVI, pp. 1005-7). a a

~ DN] MS

my days for the last [reporter's error]

20

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 6

actual business of government.2 These personal considerations I have cast aside—(cheers)—but there is one thing which it is not so easy to cast aside—a rooted dislike to the mode in which the suffrages of electors are ordinarily sought. To be selected by a great community as the representative of what is highest in their minds, their consciences, and their understanding—of their sincere convictions and their patriotic sentiments—is one of the highest honours which it is possible for the citizen of a free country to receive. (Hear, hear.} But to be sent into Parliament as representative of that part of the electors whose minds are to be got at by money—who are to be reached by trickery—by saying one thing and meaning another—by making professions which are not intended to be acted upon, and which being contrary to one's own convictions it would be a greater breach of morality to keep than to violate—that I regard not as an honour but as a disgrace. (Cheers.) Therefore, when a body of this great constituency did me the honour to make the most unexpected and flattering proposal of presenting me as a candidate for your suffrages, I answered that I should not be willing to spend £10,000 in corrupting and debauching b the constituents who are debauchable and corruptible; that neither would I give any pledge except the single pledge to be always open and above board (loud cheers); and that neither would I solicit your votes. I hold the whole system of personal solicitation to be a mistake. Not that I would condemn those who merely have conformed to a bad custom, and have done nothing to make that custom worse than they found it. A seat in Parliament ought not to be a matter of solicitation, because it cannot be a matter of favour. I have no right to ask it as a favour; you have no right to grant it c . You have no right but to select the man who appears to you to be fittest. That was my answer, and to the honour of Westminster—I may say that much, though I am a party concerned—a body of men were found who were sufficiently alive to what is due to public principle, who were sufficiently solicitous for their own honour, and for the honour of this constituency, to say ^that not the man who did those things, but the man who would not do them, was the man of their choice. (Cheers.) It remained to be seen if the electors of Westminster thought so too. (Cheers.) d That, gentlemen, is the way in which I became a candidate, and it would have been quite inconsistent with a candidature grounded on these considerations to have gone about amongst you and asked for your votes e. (Hear, hear.) My principle is that you are bound to elect the fittest man. Would it have been decent in me to have gone among you and said, "I am the fittest man"? (Hear, hear.) What would have been thought of the candidate who said, "It is your duty to elect a man of merit; here am I, elect 2

I.e., from 1823 to 1858 in the Examiner's Office of the East India Company.

^Manuscript (by strictly legal means of course) Manuscript : you are conferring a solemn trust d-d^Y] MS that no man who would do these things ought to represent Westminster. (Cheers.) We will see if the electors don't think so too. ^Manuscript directly and personally c

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [2]

21

me." (A laugh and cheers.) Gentlemen, I am not here because I proposed myself; I am here because I am proposed by others. I hope you don't suppose that 1 think all the fine things true about me which have been said and written with so much exaggeration, but with a depth and strength of kind feeling towards myself, for which I never can be sufficiently grateful, by numbers of persons almost all personally unknown to me. I know that you will excuse Ahese strong encomiums^, knowing how much a man is liable to be overpraised, as well as unjustly attacked, at a contested election. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps you may ask, since for those reasons I have during all these weeks not come among you, why I come now. I come for two reasons. I was told by those who had good means of judging that many of you desired to know more of me than you have been able to collect from what I have written. Such a statement as that left me no option, for you have a right to know my opinions and to have an opportunity of judging for yourself what man you are to select. Whatever you think right to ask concerning my political opinions it is my duty to tell you, I stand pledged to answer you—and it is the only pledge I will give—not only truly, but with perfect openness. (Cheers.) It would have been as easy for me, as it is for many others, to have put forth a plausible profession of political faith. It need not have been one of those wishy-washy, meaningless, and colourless addresses—(cheers)—of which the papers are now so full, and which a Tory, Whig and Radical might equally have signed—which bind them to nothing, and which are consistent with almost any vote that they can give. (Cheers.) I need not have been reduced to such an extremity. (Hear, hear.) I might have made out a long 8bonafide8 list of political questions on which I have the high satisfaction of believing that I entirely agree with you. I might have passed gently over all subjects of possible difference and observed a discreet silence about any opinion that might possibly have startled anybody. (Laughter and cheers.) h I did the very reverse. I put forth no address, but instead I undertook that whatever questions you put to me concerning my political opinions I would answer fully. (Hear, hear.) The questions that you did put to me I answered with a degree of unreserve which has been a sort of scandal in the electioneering world. (A laugh and cheers.) What compelled me to say anything about women's votes or the representation of minorities? Is it likely that any one would have questioned me upon those points? Not one of you probably would, but you asked what my opinions on Reform were, and being asked, I did not think it consistent with plain dealing to keep back any of them. (Cheers.) I dare say I lowered myself prodigiously in the eyes of those persons who think that the cleverest thing in a candidate is to dissemble, to finesse, and to commit himself to nothing if he can possibly help it. "How injudicious!" said one; "How impractical!" said another; "How can he possibly expect to be elected on such a ^"^Manuscript what is excessive in these eulogiums g g ~ +DN.Manuscript ''Manuscript Did I do this?

22

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 6

programme?" thought even sincere friends. In answer to all that I beg them to consider—1st, that perhaps if I had the choice I would rather be honest than be elected—(loud cheers, which continued for several minutes); and 2nd, that perhaps the electors of Westminster have a taste for honesty and may think that man who deals honestly with them before he is elected is the more likely person to deal honestly with them after he is elected. (Renewed cheers.) Of one thing I am sure—that', even though a man should lose his election by it,' the most practical thing in the world is honesty J, and perhaps they would live to learn this lesson7. (Hear, hear.) I suppose you would hardly expect me to travel over a whole catalogue of political questions, and tell you things which you know quite as well as I do. *It would be better that I should answer questions afterwards, and give you any explanations that you may desire on particular points. What I will do now is to attempt to give you an idea of the general tendency of my opinions.k I am here as the candidate of advanced Liberalism—(cheers)—and I should like to tell you what in my estimation these words mean. Mr. Gladstone (cheers) in one of those memorable speeches which have made every sincere reformer look to him as our future Parliamentary leader—(cheers)—has given us a definition of the difference between Tory and Liberal. He has said that Liberalism is trust in the people, limited only by prudence; that Toryism is distrust of the people, limited only by fear. (Cheers.)3 That is a distinction which in one of its aspects is a most important one; but there is a still larger view that may be taken of the difference. A Liberal is he who looks forward for his principles of government; a Tory looks backward. (Cheers.) A Tory is of opinion that the real model of government lies somewhere behind us in the region of the past, from which we are departing further and further. Toryism means the subjection and dependence of the great mass of the community in temporal matters upon the hereditary possessors of wealth, and in spiritual matters to the Church, and therefore it is opposed 'to the last moment,' to everything which could lead us further away from this model. When beaten the Tory may accept defeat by a necessity of the age, but he still hankers after the past, and still thinks that good government means the restoration in some shape mor other"1 of the feudal principle—(hear, hear)—and continues to oppose all further 3

William Ewart Gladstone (1809-98), who was, following the death of Lord Palmerston, to become the leading Liberal in the Commons in the next session, Speech at Chester, 1 June, 1865 (The Times, 2 June, p. 5). '"'+DN] DT , even if a man loses by it, ] Manuscript as DN . . . man may now and then lose his election by it, in the long run] j-J+TT] Manuscript and this is a lesson politicians will have to learn *~*DN] MS What I will do now is to give you an idea of the general tendency of my political opinions. ] DT It is better that I should confine myself to questions you ask me; but I will attempt to show you the general tendency of my opinions. ] Manuscript It is better that I should confine myself to giving explanations on any points on which you think they are needed. '~'+DT,DN,TT] Manuscript , up to the last moment m m ~ Manuscript , perhaps a shape better adapted to the time

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [2]

23

progress in a new direction. The Liberal is something very different from this. "The probability is,n that we have not yet arrived at the perfect model of government—that it lies before us and not behind us—that we are too far from it to be able to see it distinctly except in outline, but that we can see very clearly in what direction it lies—not in the direction of some new form of dependence, but in the emancipation of the dependent classes—more freedom, more equality, and more responsibility of each person for himself. (Loud cheers.) That, gentlemen, is the first article of my political creed. Now for the second. Believing as I do that "society and0 political institutions are, or ought to be, in a state of progressive advance; that it is the very nature of progress to lead us to recognise as truths what we do not as yet see to be truths; believing also that pby diligent study, by attention to the past, by constant application,p it is possible to see a certain distance before us, and to be able to distinguish beforehand some of these truths of the future, and to assist others to see them—I certainly think there are truths which ^the time has now arrived for*1 proclaiming, although the time may not yet have arrived for carrying them into effect. (Cheers.) That is what I mean by radvancedr Liberalism. JBut does it follow that, because a man sees something of the future, he is incapable of judging of the past? Does it follow that, because a man thinks of to-morrow, he knows nothing of to-day?5 That is what the dunces will tell you. (Cheers and laughter.) I venture to reverse the proposition. The only persons who can judge for the present—who can judge for the day truly and safely—are those who include to-morrow in their deliberations. We can see the direction in which things are tending, and which of those tendencies we are to encourage and which to resist. That is a policy to which we look for all the greater good of the future.' But while I would refuse to suppress one iota of the opinions I consider best, I confess I would not object to accept any reasonable compromise which would give me even a little of that of which I hope in time to obtain the whole. (Cheers.) "~"DT] MS,DN He probably thinks] TT He was of opinion] Manuscript He thinks °-°+DT,DN,Manuscript P-P+DT] DN by patient study of the past and a sufficient application of our thoughts to a great subject,] Manuscript by a diligent study of the past, and application of thought to great questions '"'DN which a few are now holding and r r ~ + DT,DN,Manuscript S ~T)T] MS Does it follow that because a man sees something of to-morrow he can do nothing about to-day?] DN But does it follow that because a man can see something of the future he is not capable of judging of to-day?] Manuscript But does it follow, because a person has something to say about the future, that he must be incapable of judging of the present? That if he thinks for tomorrow, he can know nothing about today? '~*DT I can see much tendency now which we ought to encourage, much to resist; but we ought to take care that the policy of the moment will be such as to fit us, and not unfit us, for the policy of the future. (Hear, hear.)] DN If we see towards what things are tending, what the tendencies are which we ought to encourage and what to resist, we shall take care that the policy of the moment shall be such as to fit us, and not unfit us, for the future. (Cheers.)] Manuscript : who can see what things we are tending to; which of the tendencies we should favour and which resist; and who will take care that his policy of the moment shall fit us instead of unfitting us for the greater good of the future. [The clause previous to this passage is in the singular. ]

24

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 6

There is one more topic upon which I have something to say. I have told you one reason why I have now come amongst you. There is another. The contest has changed its character. It "no longer relates to me personally". What you are called upon to decide is not whether you prefer me to somebody else: it is whether the representation of Westminster, up to this time the most honourable seat in the House of Commons, is to continue hereafter, as it has been heretofore, to be obtained by the honest choice of the constituents, or is to be had for money? (Cheers.) The very fact that such a question can be put—much more that there should be a doubt as to the result—is enough to fill with shame any inhabitant of Westminster who knows the ancient reputation of his city. (Cheers.} v We v Reformers have been accustomed to demand that the great landed nobility and gentry should no longer have it in their power to hoist their sons and proteges into Parliament over the heads of the constituents, passing over their minds, and addressing themselves either to their personal interests or to their hereditary subserviency. "We object to this, and with reasonw; but what shall we gain, what will it profit us, to weaken aristocratic ascendancy if seats in Parliament are to be put up to auction? (Hear, hear.) What is it but putting them up to auction if they are to be knocked down to the man *with the longest purse, and who is willing to spend his money*? (Cheers.) Of all the political nuisances of the day this is one which it most behoves everyone to make a stand against, because it is the only one which is increasing while almost all the others are rapidly diminishing. The great facilities for money-getting which arise from the unexampled prosperity of the country are raising up a crowd of persons who have made large fortunes or whose fathers have made large fortunes for them—(laughter)—and whose main object in life is by means of these fortunes to purchase position—that is to say, admission into the society of persons of higher rank than themselves. In this country there is only one way in which that can be done by money, and that is by getting a seat in Parliament: Was it for this purpose that the House of Commons was instituted? (Cheers.) I am the vefy last person to say anything disparaging of the class of persons I am speaking of and to assert that they have no business in Parliament. Many of them have strong claims y, by their knowledge and abilities/ to a seat in the House of Commons, and are an element which it could ill spare. (Hear, hear.) But the mischief is that it is precisely those who have the least chance of getting elected on their own merits rwho have no chance of getting into good society by "~"DT is no longer a mere personal matter] DN now no longer regards me] Manuscript is no longer foremost to myself v v - +DN,Manuscript] DT What VV VV ~ +DT] Manuscript This we object to, and with reason *~JC+DN] Manuscript who has the longest purse, and is willing to open it widest > y " +DN, Manuscript Z Z ~ DT , and who have no chance of getting into society by their talents or their education , ] DN , who have no chance whatever of getting into society by their own talents, or education, or influence,] Manuscript —who have no chance of making their way into what is called good society by . . . as MS . . . breeding—it is exactly those

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [2]

25

their talents, their education, and their breeding. It is exactly those persons2 who are under the strongest temptation to employ the only other means open to them—viz., a lavish expenditure of money, in corrupting the electors—I say corrupting, not meaning necessarily a violation of the law. There is a great deal of corruption which is not technically bribery. (Hear, hear.) "It makes no difference if a working man is paid for his vote or paid for putting a placard in his window. a Everyone who gets into Parliament by such means as these—by opening the public-houses—goes there to represent the vices of the constituency. (Cheers.) It is vain to hope that men will be shamed out of these things as long as they are not cut in society b . But if you cannot prevent them from doing these things you can prevent them from succeeding. (Cheers.) The experiment is being tried upon you. A strong effort is being made to bring in a Tory candidate by an expenditure of money more profuse than a Tory ever attempted in this city. (Cheers.) It is tolerably well known that the majority of the electors of Westminster are not Tories—(a laugh)—and it is not uncharitable to suppose that the supporters of the Tory candidate rested their hopes upon money. If they thought that you had turned Conservative, that you had had enough of Reform, that constitutional improvements had gone far enough, and that it was now time to stop—(a laugh)—they would have selected for the distinction of representing this city one of their eminent men—one of the men who are an honour to their party—such a man as Lord Stanley.4 (Cheers.) When, instead of the man of the greatest merit they offer you a man who is willing to spend most profusely, they show plainly in what it is that they put their trust. (Cheers.) Will you let them succeed? (Cries of No, no.) It is no exaggeration to say that all eyes are upon you. Every friend of freedom and purity of election in the country is looking to you with anxious feelings. There is another class of persons who are also looking at you, and they are those c—and there are many of them— c who cultivate contempt of the people. All these are watching you, and hoping to find you worthy of their contempt. They are chuckling in the hope of succeeding in the attempt to debauch you. They say ^that it is not in you to elect any man except he is willing to spend his money, that^ you have no public virtue, and that public "Edward Henry Stanley (1826-93), the son and heir of the 14th Earl of Derby, at this time M.P. for King's Lynn, known for his abilities and his political moderation. a a ~ DT It makes no difference to a working man whether he be paid for working or be paid for putting a placard in his window. ] DN It is not more corruption to give money to get into parliament than it is to pay a man for exhibiting a placard in his window for the purpose of inducing him to vote for the man who pays him. ] Manuscript To gain a seat by giving money to the electors is not less corruption because the elector does not receive the money for his vote, but for ostensible services; it makes no moral difference whether a working man is paid for voting, or for putting, for instance, a placard in his window. 6 MS for doing them C C ~ +DT] Manuscript (they are very numerous) d d ~ + DN] Manuscript that you have it not in you to elect any person but the man who will spend most money among you—that

26

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 6

virtue is not to be expected from such people as you are. They are waiting eagerly and anxiously for you to justify their opinion. I hope you will disappoint them. (Cheers.) If you elect me and I should turn out a total failure—if I disappointed every expectation—you would have nothing to be ashamed of. You would have acted an honest part and done that which at the time seemed to be best for the public good. Can the same thing be said if you return the candidate of a party against which for a century past Westminster has in the most emphatic manner protested, for his money? If this great constituency should so degrade itself it will not only be the deepest mortification to all who put faith in popular institutions, but Westminster will have fallen from her glory, and she can never hold her head as high as she has done, because the progress of popular institutions, which cannot possibly be stopped, will have to go on ein future e without her.. (Mr. Mill resumed his seat amid loud and prolonged cheers.) f Mr. . Harrow (a non-elector) asked what were Mr. Mill's views with respect to marriage with a deceased wife's sister.5 (Great laughter and cries of Oh, and Hear, hear.)? Mr. Mill saidhQ %ad not considered the outs and ins of the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister5, but as he did not see any ''conclusiveh reason why such marriages should not be permitted, he would vote for freedom in the matter. (Cheers.) [In reply to Mr. Morrison, an elector of the City of London] Mr. Mill said he would do away with the Irish Church, root and branch. (Cheers.) [An elector, Mr. Whitely, asked if Mill was in favour of the Permissive Bill. ]6 'Mr. Mill replied that this was a question on which it was painful for him to 5 A recurring question in these years, opposed by strict interpreters of the religious injunctions against marriage within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. For the most recent legislative attempt, see "A Bill to Render Legal Certain Marriages of Affinity," 25 Victoria (11 Feb., 1862), PP, 1862, III, 133-4 (not enacted). The question anticipates the bringing in of "A Bill to Render Legal Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister," 29 Victoria (6 Mar., 1866), PP, 1866, III, 501-3 (also not enacted). 6 Another recurrent question, most recently seen in "A Bill to Enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in Certain Districts to Prevent the Common Sale of Intoxicating Liquors within Such Districts," 27 Victoria (10 Mar., 1864), PP, 1864, II, 357-64 (not enacted). e e +DN] Manuscript for the present ^^DN] MS In reply to Mr. Wanold *~*DN did not expect that would be the first question put to him A A - DT sufficient '~'DN] MS Mr. Mill said he warmly sympathised with the efforts of the temperance reformers. He believed drunkenness to be the bane of the working classes, and to be one of the greatest obstacles to their political advancement. But he could not violate principle, and did not think that it was right because some persons abused a benefit that others should be deprived of it. He relied mainly on moral means, such as education, for improving the habits of the working classes. ] DT On the Permissive Bill and Maine Liquor Law, agreeing as he did with temperance, anti-drunkenness, and almost with total abstinence, on the ground that a twig sometimes required to be bent the wrong way in order to be

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [2]

27

touch, because the answer which he was conscientiously compelled to give was one contrary to the opinions of persons for whom he had a sincere respect and sympathy. (Hear, hear.} He agreed thoroughly with the teetotallers and the temperance leagues in the objects they had in view, because he believed that the prevalence of drunkenness was one of the greatest obstacles to real national progress. (Cheers.) But for all that he could not say that because some persons abused the liberty now given to use intoxicating liquors, others should be deprived of the power of using them temperately. The Permissive Bill gave the power to the majority to coerce the minority in that respect, and therefore he could not assent to such a measure. (Cheers.) He trusted to improved education to render all such coercive legislation unnecessary. (Cheers.) Mr. Whitely—I am perfectly satisfied. (Cheers.)1 In reply to other questions, Mr. Mill said he was ynot opposed to7 capital punishment in extreme cases—in cases where murder was aggravated by brutality *—because, although death by hanging was less painful than death in bed, and was more merciful than imprisonment for life, it had a more deterrent effect on the imagination*. He was in favour of the opening of the British Museum and similar institutions on Sundays, under proper regulations. Mr. Malleson then moved a resolution declaring Mr. Mill a fit and proper person to represent Westminster, and pledging the meeting to make every effort to secure his return. (Cheers.) He announced, amid loud cheers, that the split in the Liberal party was likely, he might say certainly, to be removed, and hoped that the great Liberal party would vote for Mill and Grosvenor. [ The resolution was supported by Fawcett, Lord Stanley who "appealed to the constituency of Westminster as the 'aristocracy of democracy' to set a good example to the country at large by electing Mr. Mill, " Potter, Montague Chambers, and Henry Vincent. ] l Before the resolution was put, a lady in the body of the room obtained permission to make a speech. Addressing the assemblage as "Gentlemen and ladies, " she, in a vigorous and well-finished style of public speaking, said she supposed it would be needless for her to tell them she was not an elector of Westminster—(laughter)—but she had heard as a secret, and as a woman was bound to tell it, that Mr. Mill was in favour of manhood suffrage and womanhood suffrage. (Loud cheers and laughter.) It seemed to her that the complaints against Mr. Mill on that account were not complaints against vice, but against excess of set straight, still he could not consent to give power to the majority to tyrannise over the minority. He would trust more to improvement of morals and education, of which he believed the promoters of the Permissive Bill were also supporters. ^~^DT] MS only in favour of the infliction of *-*+DT '-'+DT

28

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 7

virtue. (Cheers.) The electors of Westminster had been called the aristocracy of democracy. Let then their honour be on the side of virtue. (Cheers.) It was said that men consulted their wives as to whom they should vote for—(laughter, and a voice, That's true)—and she had heard that members of Parliament also who had wives asked them what votes they should give. (Laughter and cheers.) It was a motto of the ancient Spartans that a free man could never be the son of a bond woman. That might be so; but wherever there was intellect, wherever there was character, conscience, responsibility, there ought to be representation, although the sex might be female. (Cheers.) The lady's remarks were attentively heard, but at this part of her speech the Chairman, finding time was pressing, requested her to postpone further observations until the resolution was put.l [The resolution was carried unanimously, amidst long-continued cheers, and the meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. ]

7. The Westminster Election of 1865 [3] 6 JULY, 1865 Daily News, 1 July, 1865, p. 3. Headed: "Westminster." Reported also in the Daily Telegraph, 1 July. The evening meeting of the Westminster electors was held in the Regent Music Hall, Regent Street, Vincent Square, which "was densely crowded by an enthusiastic audience" (Daily Telegraph). Thomas Hughes took the chair and, alluding to Mill's great practical qualifications, mentioned his advocacy of cooperation and exhorted the electors to vote on Monday or Tuesday. Hughes being obliged to leave the chair, Westerton took his place. Mill, who was "received with loud cheers, the assemblage rising and waving their hats" (Daily Telegraph), then spoke.

HE EXPLAINED in almost precisely the same terms as he used at St. James's-halll the reasons that had induced him to come forward and to meet the electors personally. He said that he accepted the office of candidate on the condition that he should neither solicit nor buy votes. There was an old saying, not altogether true, perhaps, that he who buys will sell, and it was certainly not fair that a candidate who did not intend to sell the votes should be called upon to buy them. This meeting had been called for the purpose of giving what were termed the working classes an opportunity of seeing him and asking him any questions. He did not like the phrase "working classes," because it implied the existence of non-working classes, and nobody in this country had any business to be idle. Indeed there was a growing feeling among those who could afford to be idle that they ought to be 'See No. 6.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [3]

29

usefully employed. There was abundant scope for the spread of education among the richer classes as well as among the working men. For his part he never desired to be paid for being idle or for work which he did not do. His sympathies were all with working people. (Cheers.) There was a much greater distinction than there ought to be between those who worked with their head and those who worked with their hands. It would probably be better for the head workers if they worked a little more with their hands; it would be better for their health, it would tend to make them more cheerful, and it would lead to increased human fellow feeling and public spirit. It was, perhaps, not generally known that he was one of the first persons in the kingdom who had suggested the adoption of the principles of co-operation in a practical shape. "Five years before the Rochdale Pioneers society was established he wrote an article in the Westminster Review,2 the object of which was to show the radical party of the House of Commons, then almost on the eve of dissolution, how it might be reconstructed and rendered more in unison with the radicals out of doors.a At that time the radicals in the house did not go for universal suffrage, while those out of doors demanded nothing less, and his object in writing that article was to show the radical party in the house that the best way of getting out of its difficulty was to redress the practical grievances of the working classes, and he then pointed out the fact that by the operation of the then existing law co-operative societies could not be established; when the law was altered,3 and co-operative societies were established, they went on with surprising rapidity (hear, hear}, and a way was soon found by which the working classes could raise themselves without pulling down anybody, but, on the contrary, with advantage, not only to themselves, but the country at large. The principle of co-operative societies went on extending itself, and the conviction of the truth of that principle eventually became so strong that it found an advocate *of all other places in the world'' in the pages of the Quarterly Review (oh).4 That implied an immense change in public opinion; the working men were in fact emancipated, and their cause was in their own hands. With respect to the extension of the suffrage, he went much further in his views of the concessions which he thought ought to be made to working men than did even those who sympathised warmly with working men, although, on the other hand, some might imagine that he had not gone far 2

"Reorganization of the Reform Party," London and Westminster Review, XXXII (Apr. 1839), 475-508; in CW, Vol. VI, pp. 465-95. For the comments on co-operation, see pp. 486-7. The Rochdale Equitable Pioneers' Co-operative store opened in December 1844. 3 By 15 Victoria, c. 31 (1852). ^'Workmen's Benefit Societies," Quarterly Review, CXVI (Oct. 1864), 318-50, by Samuel Smiles (1812-1904), the advocate of self-help. "~aDT Five years before 1839, when the Rochdale Pioneers' Society was established, he wrote an article in the Westminster Review, the object of which was to show that the law ought so to be altered that these co-operative societies might exist, which at that period they could not. *-"DT] DN even

30

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 7

enough. It could not be a perfect government cin which one class of the community could legislate for another which was not represented c, and he certainly agreed in the opinion that no man who was competent to manage his own affairs ought to be without a vote. He thought the House of Commons ought to be placed in the position of da fair, just, and impartial umpire ord arbitrator between contending interests, and that any mode which would secure the return of one-half of the members who were devoted to the interests of the employed, the other half representing landed property, capital and their sympathisers would be in a position to reason justly on any grievance of the working men. Class distinctions should be abolished were it possible to do so; but so long as they existed they ought to be fairly represented in parliament. He would not permit the employer class to be represented in such a way as to be able to outvote the representatives of the employed, while so far as the suffrage itself went, he thought it ought to be given to all persons of age who could read, write, and cypher. cBut, though he was prepared to give to every man and woman who was of age, and capable of managing his or her affairs, a voice, he was not prepared to give them such an equality that, whether they were right or wrong, they should be able to outvote everybody else. (Hear, hear.)6 ^Although he had suggested plans of his own to accomplish this,5 he was quite ready to consider those of any other person. If he was returned to Parliament, he would give his earnest attention to any reform measure which might be proposed, and anything which would bring them nearer to that which they wanted would receive his support, as a compromise; but he would accept nothing which did not increase the influence of the working classes, and give a great many more representatives in Parliament. (Hear, hear. )f g A person in the body of the hall put a question, quoting from a placard by the Tories, to this effect: " 'The result of observation is borne out by experience in England itself. As soon as any idea of equality enters the mind of an uneducated English working man, his head is turned by it. When he ceases to be servile he becomes insolent.'— Mill's Principles of Political Economy, People's Edition, p. 68."6 5

See Considerations on Representative Government (1861), in CW, Vol. XIX, pp. 371-577, esp. Chaps, vii and viii. Principles of Political Economy (1848), Bk. I, Chap, vii, Sect. 5 (in CW, Vol. II, p. 109); the passage, added in the 3rd ed. (1852), is in the People's Ed. (1865) at p. 68. C C

~ DT which enabled one class to legislate for its own benefit. (Applause.) '-JDJ] DN an e -'+DT / ~-t)T] DN It was not likely that he should be able to bring in a reform bill of his own, but if returned he should give his attention to the plans of others, and he should stand by the principles he had laid down. At the same time he would accept any enlargement of the franchise as a step in the right direction provided they were not called upon to pay the price of a worse distribution. (Cheers.) *"*DT] DN A great many questions were put to the honourable candidate, most of which have been put and answered before, and the proceedings concluded with a resolution to the effect that the meeting considered Mr. Mill to be a fit person to represent Westminster in parliament, which was carried by acclamation.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [4]

31

Mr. Mill said that he did not want uneducated men voters, and was in favour of an educational test—reading, writing, and simple arithmetic. If the suffrage were not to depend upon that, it would be universal. The honourable candidate then highly praised the conduct of the Lancashire operatives, and expressed his belief that it was owing to their intelligence they knew the cause of their distress.7 This was mainly owing to the cheap press. (Loud applause.) They had seen the discussions respecting the subject, and that they owed to the cheap press. If they had not learnt to read, they could not have benefited by the cheap press, and the press now gave to any man, however humble his circumstances, the means of acquiring the best information respecting political knowledge, written by some of the most able men of the country. (Cheers.) To men, therefore, who had the qualification of reading, writing, and arithmetic, he would entrust a share in the management of the destinies of this country, when they had those excellent means of learning the opinions of the ablest men. (Applause.) Respecting the malt tax, Mr. Mill said a question had been sent up to him, "Will you vote against it?"8 If that meant, would he advocate free trade in intoxicating drinks, without asking leave of any person in opening a public-house, he would say, "No"—(hear, hear)—because public-houses were very often a nuisance, and it was of great importance that nuisances should be out of the way. (Cheers.) There must be such things, but they should be out of the way as much as possible consistent with the public convenience. He would have some public authorities whose duty it should be to see that they were not a nuisance. He thought that it was much better to tax stimulants than necessary articles. He would, in the present state of affairs, vote for the Maynooth grant, and was in favour of opening museums on Sundays. The ballot should be an open question. The shopkeepers were much more in need of it than the working classes. Other questions having been satisfactorily answered, a vote approving of Mr. Mill as a candidate was carried, and the meeting separated.8

8. The Westminster Election of 1865 [4] 8 JULY, 1865 Daily Telegraph, 10 July, 1865, p. 2. Headed: "Election Intelligence. / Westminster." Reported fully on the same day in the Morning Star; brief summaries appeared also in the Daily News and The Times. The meeting of electors and non-electors on Saturday evening 7 The cotton industry collapsed because the Union forces in the U.S. Civil War denied access to the Confederate States' cotton, and great distress resulted in Lancashire, especially in 1862-63. Nonetheless, the operatives expressed support for the North. 8 "A Bill to Allow the Charging of the Excise Duty on Malt According to the Weight of the Grain Used, "28 Victoria (19 May, 1865), PP, 1865,111,1-6, had been enacted as 28 & 29 Victoria, c. 66 (1865). It was expected that the matter would be raised again.

32

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 8

in the Pimlico Rooms, Winchester Street, was chaired by Charles Westerton. "The room was densely crowded by a most enthusiastic audience" (Daily Telegraph).

MR. j.s. MILL, who upon rising to speak was received with loud cheers, again and again repeated, said that, as the electors of Westminster must all pretty well know what were the principles upon which he rested his candidature, it was not necessary that he should occupy their time by recapitulating them. But he should like to say a few words upon a most important principle, which was involved in this contest—that this was a protest against the "money power" employed in elections. (Cheers.) He was not going to say anything which could possibly offend any party or anybody—nothing about the misuse of money—about using it for the purposes of corruption, giving it to electors to return any particular candidate. If it were stated to candidates that before going to the poll they must spend £2,000, £3,000, £4,000, or any other sum of money, "for the good of the public," things would be pretty much as they now stood, with the important difference, that then the candidate who had to pay this money, as most had, would know that it was used for some other purpose than it was now, viz., the demoralisation of the electors. (Cheers.) Did they think it was the right and best thing that the House of Commons should be composed exclusively of rich men, or men with rich connections? (No.) There were a good many reasons why this was not desirable, and one was that the rich naturally sympathised with the rich. (Hear, hear.) The rich had sympathies enough for the poor when the poor came before them as objects of pity. Their feelings of charity were often highly creditable to their dispositions; and, besides, they had almost universally a kind of patronising and protective sympathy for the poor, such as shepherds had for their flocks— (laughter and cheers)—only that was conditional upon the flock always behaving like sheep. (Renewed laughter, and Hear, hear.) But if the sheep tried to have a voice in their own affairs, he was afraid that a good many shepherds would be willing to call in the wolves. (Cheers.) Now this sympathy of the rich for the rich had manifested itself in a very decided way during the last two or three years, by the extraordinary good wishes of the higher classes of this country for the success of the American slaveholders. He did not make this a matter of reproach against the rich and higher classes of this country, for he was quite ready to let bygones be bygones; but they were not at liberty to renounce the privilege, nay, the duty, of drawing lessons from the very things before their eyes—(hear, hear)—and he should like to make a few remarks upon the cause and meaning of the sympathy of the rich for these slaveholders. It was not that they loved slavery; he acquitted them of that. (Hear, hear.) But he could not acquit them of not having realised to their own minds by experience or reflection what a dreadful thing slavery really is, and what are the results it produces and gives rise to. It gives a power—whether those who have it use it or not—of torturing human beings to death at their caprice. (Hear, hear.) The government which the slaveholders endeavoured to establish,

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [4]

33

has fortunately been frustrated, or there would have been a kind of reign of evil on the earth. It is this which has given rise to the Bowie knife and the revolver—not the pure government of democracy. (Hear, hear.) Our privileged classes did not consider this, or he believed that they would have acted in a different manner from that which they did. They merely saw one thing—a privileged class opposed by those who they thought wanted to take the privilege away; and when they saw that, they said "These (the Southerners) must be gentlemen, with whom gentlemen ought to sympathise." He believed that to be exaggerated. (Hear, hear.) The man who nearly murdered Mr. Sumner on the floor of the House of Congress—that man was a gentleman!1 and the wives and daughters of slaveholders, who raised subscriptions to mark their approval of his conduct—they were gentlewomen! but the refined and polished, the highly intellectual society of Massachusetts, the poets, orators, philosophers, the popular preachers, the brightest and best, those who took a lead against these enormities—men such as Channing, Emerson, Theodore Parker, Palfrey, Lowell, Bancroft, Motley, etc.—these were not gentlemen, they were low Radicals and vulgar demagogues.2 (Cheers.) So blind were these people—these privileged ones—on our side of the water, that they did not know or care that the people whom they were thus attacking were those known to all Americans as lovers of England, lovers of English literature, sympathisers with the English people, admirers of us, and ignorant of much that was bad in our institutions. He did not make this a matter of reproach to any one, because when so many joined in it, it would not be right to apportion a share. Many who were well worthy of their respect had yielded to this general perversion of sentiment: and the moral he drew from it was this, that they had here one of the most signal instances, and so recent that it could not be objected to as belonging to olden times, of how far men could be carried away by their bias, unconscious and unintentional bias he was persuaded, but still one that made the rich sympathise with the rich, the privileged with the privileged; and the practical lesson which he deduced from it was this, that it was a very just and proper thing that there should be rich men in Parliament for the purpose of watching over the interests of the rich, but also, if they wanted a similar care to be taken of the poor, they had better not shut the door of the House of Commons upon the poor man. (Loud cheers.) The only people they would do well to keep clear of were those kind of poor men who would be glad to use a seat in Parliament to get rich—(hear, hear),—or pin themselves to the skirts of those who were rich. They would not suppose that he was one of those. 'On 22 May, 1856, Preston Smith Brooks (1819-57), a Congressman from South Carolina, angered by a violent speech attacking Senator A.P. Butler of South Carolina by Charles Sumner (1811-74), Senator from Massachusetts and abolitionist, beat Sumner senseless with a gutta percha cane. Though a vote to expel him from the House of Representatives failed, Brooks resigned, but was unanimously re-elected by his constituents. 2 For these supporters of the Union position, see App. H.

34

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 8

(Loud cries of No, no.) A great writer had said that those who wanted to be well governed should look out for those who did not want to be governors.3 They knew that he had not thrust himself upon them. (True.) If he were as certain of being up to the mark in everything else as he was that he had not sought to force himself upon them, his mind would be quite at ease. Perhaps they might wish him to refer to his general ideas of reform as applied to the Constitution—(hear)—and also whether he would be a supporter or non-supporter of the present Ministry. He could not look forward to any time in the history of this country when he should not think any Liberal Ministry preferable to any Conservative Ministry. (Cheers.) Whatever the shortcomings of a Liberal party or Government might be, they did not bear in their very names the profession of wishing to keep things as they were.4 (Hear, hear.) Their name implied that they wished to improve them; and although between the least liberal of Liberals and the most liberal of Conservatives there might only be a little difference, a short distance, still it should be ever borne in mind, and seriously remembered, that this least liberal of Liberals was surrounded by those who were far better men than himself, politically speaking, while this most liberal of Conservatives was surrounded by men who, politically speaking, were far worse than himself. (Loud applause.) Suppose York was half-way between Edinburgh and London, and two travellers met there from either place, there would be very little, if any, difference in the respective distances they had to go, but that did not decrease in the least the hundreds of miles which London was distant from Edinburgh. (Hear, hear.) If he were returned to Parliament, what he should do, and that which he should recommend others to do, would be to vote for any Liberal Government on questions as between them and the Tory Government, but he should not let himself be muddled under the pretence of keeping a Liberal Government in; therefore he would advise the independent Liberals always to vote as they thought best, and to let the Government or Ministry shift for themselves, and take their chances of whatever might be the result of a full and free discussion. As regarded Reform and improvements of details, he thought they might be pretty sure that they would go on under any Government. One of the admirable effects of the reforms and improvements which had already taken place was that the spirit of improvement had penetrated even into the Tory camp—(hear, hear)—and he thought that in all the subordinate departments of public affairs the Tories and the Whigs would vie and compete with each other in improvements of that sort. The fact was, they had a difficult problem to solve, let alone how to deal with what were called "proved abuses." There was a general conviction, and one in which he fully shared, that most of the departments of public affairs—almost all the public 3

Plato (427-347 B.C.), Republic (Greek and English), trans. Paul Shorey, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946), Vol. I, p. 80 (I,4 i, 19). A radical catchphrase, probably deriving from William Godwin (1756-1836), Things As They Are; or, The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794).

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [4]

35

business—was either badly done or done not nearly so well as it ought to be done. (Cheers.) What they had to do to remedy this—without introducing fresh evils—was to reconcile a skilful management of public affairs by trained and specially qualified people with the preservation and extension of their local liberties and the responsibility of all public functionaries to the people. (Cheers.) In short, they wanted a system of administration which should at once be skilful and popular. This was not an easy matter. It would task the best minds, both in and out of Parliament, for a considerable time. But that was what they had to do. He had no doubt that in this some assistance would be rendered by the Conservatives, because, without speaking of such a brilliant exception as Lord Stanley, there were Sir John Pakington, Sir Stafford Northcote,5 and others, who would be glad to assist in improvements of that sort—(hear, hear)—as far as they saw the way, and they often saw a good way. But still, while good service could be got out of such men, the Tories must be looked to as a body, as a party; and as a party they showed what they were, a long way behind the Liberals. The only way in which the Tories could at all distinguish themselves was by actually showing that they were "a little bit worse" than the Liberals. (Laughter.) This at least was the best excuse that could be found for them, though recently they had showed that they were a good deal worse than the Liberals, in dealing with such subjects as the church rates and the Catholic Oaths Bill.6 (Hear, hear.) In conclusion Mr. Mill expressed his readiness to answer any questions, and resumed his seat amidst considerable applause. Several of those present availed themselves of the opportunity to examine Mr. Mill respecting certain of his political doctrines. Question: How do you explain your writing that the upper classes are liars, and the lower classes—the working classes—habitual liars?7 Mr. Mill said such was his writing. He thought so, and so did the most intelligent of the working classes themselves, and the passage applied to the natural state of those who were both uneducated and subjected. If they were educated and became free citizens, then he should not be afraid of them. Lying was the vice of slaves, and they would never find slaves who were not liars. It was not a reproach that they were what slavery had made them. But those persons who 5

John Somerset Pakington (1799-1880), Conservative M.P. for Droitwich, who was a leader in the movement for reform of elementary education, and Stafford Henry Northcote (1818-87), at this time Conservative M.P. for Stamford, who had worked on reorganizing the Board of Trade and the Civil Service. 6 In the debates and votes on "A Bill for the Commutation of Church Rates," 28 Victoria (21 Feb., 1865), PP, 1865,1, 135-54 (not enacted), and "A Bill to Substitute an Oath for the Oath Required to Be Taken by the Statute Passed in the Tenth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," 28 Victoria (21 Mar., 1865), PP, 1865, IV, 375-8 (not enacted). 7 Cf. Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform (1859), in CW, Vol. XIX, p. 338. For Mill's later comment on this exchange, see Autobiography, CW, Vol. I, pp. 274-5.

36

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 8

quoted this passage were not candid enough to read on. (Applause.) He said that he was not speaking of the vices of his countrymen, but of their virtues, and that they were superior to most other countrymen in truthfulness—(cheers)—and that the lower classes, though they did lie, were ashamed of lying, which was more than he could venture to say of the same class in any other nation which he knew. (Hear, hear.) °An Elector inquired on what ground Mr. Mill thought the working classes had not the right to have large families as well as the higher classes. (Oh, oh.) Mr. Mill said he would have no difficulty in answering the question. For one thing he never had said that the working classes had not as much right as the higher classes, but that they had no more right.8 Neither had a right to have more children than they could support and educate. The higher classes had no more right than the lower classes to overstock the labour market. If this was a reproach it was a reproach which attached to almost all the writers on political economy during the last half century. Their views on this subject were dictated by the strongest wish for the best interest of the working classes. They felt that as long as wages were as low as they then were, and as they still were, it was not possible to hope for a great political and moral improvement in the country. The interests of the working classes required that their wages should be higher, not only for the obvious reason that they were not sufficient, but because it was a necessary condition of proper education. They felt that wages, though other causes might have helped, were a great deal kept down by excessive competition for employment, and although that excessive competition had been to some extent relieved by emigration, they saw no hope for altering this state of things except by a moral resolution on the part of the labouring classes not to overstock the labour market. Some people said it was absurd to expect this. He said that, on the contrary, all morality was a triumph over some of their natural propensities. The strongest of their natural propensities had been overcome by the various inducements that had been addressed to mankind— by public opinion, by education, by religion, none of which influences had ever been sufficiently or satisfactorily brought to bear on this particular end. Such was his faith in human nature and in the effect of these influences, that when they were brought to bear on the over-multiplication of mankind they would have an influence on all classes of the community. No class who might be called rich had a right to have more sons and daughters than they could provide for, because if they could not leave them well off they might be quartered on the public. (Cheers.)" Question (from a person on the platform): How can Mr. Mill reconcile his doctrine with the Scriptural injunction, that we are to increase and multiply?9 (Much laughter.) 8

Cf. Principles of Political Economy, CW, Vol. II, p. 358 (II, xii, 2). Genesis, 1:28.

9

"-fl+MS

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [4]

37

Mr. Mill: It says we are to eat and drink, but not to over-eat and over-drink ourselves.10 (Cheers and laughter.) b An Elector asked how Mr. Mill thought the representation of minorities was practicable? Mr. Mill said he was sure that the opinion which he had expressed on this point was only not shared by reformers generally because it was not understood. His idea of representation was that not a part only, even if it were a majority, but that everybody should be represented. Tor instance, if there was a constituency of 5,000, and it had to elect one member, and there were two candidates, and 3,000 voted for one candidate and 2,000 for the other, the man elected would represent the 3,000 voters; but why were the 2,000 to go unrepresented if there could be found another 1,000 to agree with it in returning some other person? The number to be fixed would of course depend on the proportion between the number of representatives and the number of voters; but he would certainly give a member to every 10,000 or 8,000, whatever the number might be, who could agree in electing a representative.c This was what they had heard of as Mr. Hare's plan, otherwise the system of personal representation which, instead of being the complicated and unintelligible thing which some people represented, was the simplest thing in the world.J! Mr. Hare's was the most practical and organising head that he knew, and he believed that they could not carry out the principle of popular representation or democratic government without this plan. * Question: Will you support a bill for purifying the Church of England from Romanising practices and tendencies? Mr. Mill had often thought that one of the most important uses of a representative constitution was that it caused great questions to be discussed. He was never more sensible of this truth than just now, and this question had given him an opportunity of saying something which he had not been able to do before. The question meant, would he chase out of the Church of England the Tractarian party?12 That he would not do, because he thought the greatest argument against an 10

Cf. Ecclesiastes, 2:24. "See No. 4. 12 A recent move to purge the Church of England of Tractarian (or Puseyite) practices had been made by George Hampden Whalley (1813-78), Liberal M.P., in his Motion on the Church of England, Illegal Usages and Ornaments (23 May, 1865), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 178, cols. 774-5. *-*+MS

C ~T)T Suppose, for instance, and he took the number at random, that a constituency consisted of 5,000 voters, and these 5,000 voters had to elect one member; and suppose that of these 2,000 were Conservatives, and 3,000 were Liberals, or that 2,000 were Liberals, and the 3,000 Conservatives; in either case it was quite right that the 3,000, the majority, should have the member. But why were the other 2,000 voters to be without a member? They were entitled to one. Well, if these 2,000 could go somewhere else, and find another 1,000 who would agree with them, he would so have it, and give them a representative. (Hear, hear.) He would have the number fixed, by simple arithmetic, of those who were entitled to representation, say 5,000,10,000,20,000 or any number they liked. Well, if these

38

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 8

Established Church was that it tied up the minds of its clergy. He wanted, within certain bounds, that the clergyman should not have to sign away his mental liberty; that he should have the power, as far as was consistent with an Established Church, of forming his own sincere convictions as to what Christianity was; and although many of the clergy might come to different, and perhaps some to wrong perceptions, he would not turn them out for that, so long as they thought their opinions ought not to turn them out—which some of the Tractarians had done. But if they asked him whether he would leave it in the power of any single clergyman to suppress any of the customary services, or introduce others, he would not give them such power. (Applause.) If any body of persons wanted any particular sort of worship, let them have it at their own expense. He did not admit that the clergy had a right to determine what the ceremonials of the Church should be. That ought to rest, if any one had to determine it, with the majority of the parishioners. In short, although in the Church he would have the utmost mental liberty, yet with respect to the ceremonial part, of whatever kind, that ought to rest with the laity, and not with the clergy. For it was not the collective clergy, much more one clergyman, who were the Church, but the clergy and laity. No clergyman, or collective clergy, therefore, ought to have the power of introducing ceremonials into the services against the wishes of the parishioners. (Hear, hear.) Question: How do you reconcile this—to open the museums on Sundays and obey the Divine command to keep the Sabbath day holy?13 (Hear, hear.) Mr. Mill said that those who were of opinion that this injunction was intended for the Christians, and not for the Jews exclusively, were quite right in not being able to reconcile it. But his opinion was that the Sabbatical institution was an institution for the Jews alone. (Hear, hear.) The Christian Sunday appeared to him to be an institution of quite a different character. (Hear, hear.) Question: Has Mr. Mill any confidence in and sympathy with the religion taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles; and does he believe that a State Church is a benefit to this nation or otherwise? (Cries of Don't answer.) Mr. Mill: He had already declared that he could not consent to answer any questions about his religious creed. (Loud applause, and "Quite right. " ) The question about the State Church was very different, and his opinion was this, that in principle there ought to be no such thing, but he did not think the time had yet arrived when it would be any use to try and abolish it. The thing was not pressing, and at all events the State was more Liberal than the Church, and now the best men in the Church had an opportunity of getting the highest places in it. At present he thought it would be much better to try and improve the Church itself through the State, than to abolish the connection which in principle he objected to; and he had no hesitation in saying that they ought not to be combined. 13

Exodus, 20:8.

5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 agreed upon a representative, he would give them one. If that were so, there would not be a single person unrepresented.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [4]

39

d

Question: What are the disadvantages we labour under in not having a vote, and the advantages we should possess in having one? (Oh.)d Mr. Mill: The gentleman who had asked that question had asked him in effect to make a speech which would last the rest of the evening. The difference would be this—the man would be a citizen—(loud cheers)—and he would feel that he was a citizen. Let them look at America now. Look at the grand display of patriotism; was it not the wonder of the world? Did anybody dream it would be so? Did anybody think that all those millions would be ready to give the blood of their families, and incur a national debt equal to ours—putting it at the lowest—for the nationality of their country? He did not suppose there was a family in New England which had not lost a member. Was it not something to have such a feeling in the whole body of the people? Did they not think that that had something to do with everybody having a vote? (Hear, hear.) elt seemed to him that the interests of citizenship—an equal right to be heard—to have a share in influencing the affairs of the country—to be consulted, to be spoken to, and to have agreements and considerations turning upon politics addressed to one—tended to elevate and educate the self-respect of the man, and to strengthen his feelings of regard for his fellow-men. (Cheers.) These made all the difference between a selfish man and a patriot. (Hear, hear.) To give people an interest in politics and in the management of their own affairs was the grand cultivator of mankind. (Cheers.) e That was one of the reasons why he wanted women to have votes; they needed cultivation as well as men. He could not conceive that a country was what it ought to be without an extension of a share of political right to all. (Cheers.) Those left without it seemed a sort of pariahs. Independently of this, there were plenty of practical considerations. There were many, many questions before Parliament in which it was of the greatest consequence that those who had so large an interest in them should be heard on their own behalf, and that in the very place where the questions had to be decided. It was as necessary that they should be heard when they were wrong as when they were right. When such was the case, if a man asked more than he ought, then he had the chance of either being enlightened or shamed out of it. (Cheers.) Question: What are your principles of non-intervention? Mr. Mill: He did not understand what was meant by "principle" of nonintervention, because that would be a principle of utter selfishness. His opinion was that every nation was much more capable of settling its own affairs than another Power for it. (Hear, hear.) But if a Power in trying to establish its own affairs was threatened by a foreign despot, that was another thing, and then it was perfectly legitimate to interfere—not to prevent the first Power from doing that which they thought best for themselves, but to protect them from being persecuted by the despot. (Cheers.) ''"''MS Another Elector asked what advantages would be gained by giving the working classes a vote. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) ^MS] DT It elevated the self-dignity of a man; it made all the difference between the selfish man and the patriot. (Cheers.} Only think of the mental culture it implied.

40

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 9

Question: Is it legitimate for a voter to be told that he must votefor Mr. Smith, or lose custom; or for a person to order a pair of boots and not demand the "exact" price? (Loud cries of Shame! shame!) Mr. Mill: I think that the feeling of the meeting has sufficiently answered the question already. Question: What are your opinions respecting primogeniture? Mr. Mill: Entirely against it, both politically and privately. He thought that the practice of making the oldest son heir by law was in itself unjust. ^He thought that a man should be allowed to leave what belonged to him to whom he liked, but that in cases of intestacy it should be divided equally among the children/ Question: The ballot? Mr. Mill did not think it was now necessary, especially to the working classes, and that if it was necessary it was amongst shopkeepers. [After other speeches, a resolution was passed by acclamation approving of Mr. Mill as a fit and proper candidate, and pledging the meeting to support his election; the proceedings terminated. ]

9. The Westminster Election of 1865 [5] 10 JULY, 1865 Morning Star, 11 July, 1865, p. 2. Headed: "Westminster." The nomination meeting, at the hustings in front of St. Paul's Church, Covent Garden, at midday, was also reported on the 12th in the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily News, and the Standard (the last two in the third person). There was considerable excitement, for this would be "a great political contest such as Westminster had not seen for many years "; by 11:30 nearly 3000 people had assembled, and just before noon they began "to show signs of animation. The quiet which had hitherto prevailed was relaxed, and some good-humoured larking and hustling commenced." (Morning Star.) The High Bailiff, H. Scott Turner, the returning officer, appeared, followed by the first of the candidates, Robert Wellesley Grosvenor (18341918), a member of the leading Whig family in Westminster and (after an initial period of uncertainty as to his political credentials) Mill's Liberal running mate. He "was received with cheers by his supporters, and yells by the rest of the crowd." Next came Smith, "who received a warm welcome from his supporters," and then Mill arrived, to be "greeted with enthusiastic cheers from his supporters, mingled with yells from the friends of Mr. Smith." Mill occupied the central position, with Smith on his right and Grosvenor on his left. The crier in vain called for silence during the reading of the writ by the high bailiff. "Indeed throughout the whole proceedings, a continuous volley of yells and howls, mingled with cheers for the respective candidates, was kept up. The speeches of neither proposers, seconders, nor candidates could be heard except by those close beside them, and in most cases the speakers wisely addressed their remarks to the reporters, and made them as brief as possible. It is right to state that the uproar came chiefly, not from the respectable portion of '-'+MS

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [5]

41

the electors and non-electors, but from bands of ruffianly lads, who seemed to be organised for the purpose." (Morning Star.) Grosvenor was proposed and seconded, and then Brewer nominated Mill "amidst great uproar. He alluded to Mr. Mill's high intellectual character and attainments, and to his Liberal and practical and statesmanlike views, and said it would be an honour to Westminster to be represented by such a man." Malleson seconded. Smith, characterized as a man of moderate opinions, was proposed and seconded. Grosvenor was the first of the candidates to speak. Mill then stood forward to address the electors, and "was received with great enthusiasm by his friends in the assemblage. But the shouting and noise still prevailing his remarks could only be heard by those in his immediate vicinity." (The Daily Telegraph says he "obtained a much better hearing, though great noise prevailed.")

GENTLEMEN,—It would be entirely useless for me to attempt to make a speech, which it would be impossible that any of you could hear; and I will only therefore attempt to say a few words. (Noise and cheers.) I am not here by my own seeking; I am here because a numerous and distinguished body of the electors of Westminster, thinking that that numerous and important portion of this constituency who are advanced Liberals are entitled to a representative (cheers), and that my opinions, which have been fully, freely, and unreservedly expressed both in "my letters and at very crowded meetings of the electorsa, qualify me to be that representative. They thought also that in electing me you would be asserting a principle which has been honoured in Westminster—the principle of selecting your representatives for some other reason than for their money. (Cheers.) It now rests with the electors of Westminster, who have *had the means of forming their own fc opinions on the manner in which the contest has been carried on, to judge whether I have a claim to the votes of the friends of purity of election and of advanced cLiberalism as against a Conservative opponent of all Liberalism whatever. I have nothing further to say.c {Cheers from Mr. Mill's supporters.) [Smith spoke, amidst continued uproar. Again silence was ordered, and the high bailiff called for a show of hands. ] dFor Captain Grosvenor a considerable number were held up; for Mr. Mill the display of hands was much larger; and for Mr. Smith a great number were held up. As far as could be judged, the numbers in favour of Mr. Smith and Mr. Mill were nearly equal, and there can be no doubt that each of them was larger by three to one than the numbers in favour of Captain Grosvenor. To the surprise, however, of everybody, the high bailiff declared the show of hands to be in favour of Mr. Smith and Captain Grosvenor. We do not know whether this functionary's organs of vision are imperfect, or whether in the a

"DN private and in public meetings ~*DT] MS the means of expressing their ~ DT] MS Liberals as against a Conservative and an opponent of all Liberalism whatever.] DN liberal as contradistinguished from a conservative opponent, who had declared no liberal opinions whatever. He had nothing further to say. d-djyp There were but very few for Captain Grosvenor, and about four to five times as many for Mr. Smith and Mr. Mill. Notwithstanding this, however, the Returning Officer declared that the show of hands was for Messrs. Grosvenor and Smith. (Hisses, laughter, and It's a lie.) 6

C C

42

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 10

excitement he did not attend sufficiently to the show of hands for each of the candidates but that he made a mistake was manifest to every one who had a view of the assembly.d Mr. Mill's supporters demanded a poll, and the mistake will be of little importance if he and Captain Grosvenor should be placed at the top of the poll.1 [ Smith moved and Grosvenor seconded a vote of thanks to the high bailiff. ] Each of the candidates, on leaving the hustings, was loudly cheered by his supporters. The assembly, which though noisy and uproarious throughout, was in no way mischievous, then gradually dispersed.

10. The Westminster Election of 1865 [6] 10 JULY, 1865 Daily Telegraph, 11 July, 1865, p. 4. Unheaded; the account comes immediately after the report of Mill's speech at the hustings on the same day (No. 9). The meeting was not reported in other papers. "Last night, at eight o'clock, Mr. John Stuart Mill addressed a meeting at St. Martin's Hall, Long-acre. The large room was densely crowded by a most enthusiastic audience, amongst whom was a large number of ladies. The Count de Paris occupied a seat on the platform."

THE HONOURABLE CANDIDATE, who was received with great applause, referred to most of the subjects upon which he spoke at the meeting at the Pimlico Rooms on Saturday night, which was fully reported in yesterday's Daily Telegraph,1 especially on the purity of election, the great questions between employers and employed, and co-operation. He next noticed the vast improvements which had taken place in the condition of the working classes. Mr. Gladstone had done a great deal for the working classes. (The name of Mr. Gladstone was received with enthusiastic applause.) Mr. Gladstone was a statesman who did not hold back his good things till they were wrung from him. He employed his mind in conceiving measures for the benefit of his country, whether they had been demanded or not. That was his (Mr. Mill's) idea of a great Minister. (Applause.) He believed that the future social condition of the working classes was safe. He hoped some day there would be no such thing as a class distinction; but, while it lasted, they had to take care that the House of Commons should not exercise class legislation. They (the working classes) would not be truly represented unless they had their fair l

The Times, the Daily News, and the Standard all agree that the returning officer was mistaken.

'See No. 8.

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [7]

43

share of the voices in the national tribunal. He thought that a Reform Bill would not give the labouring classes an effectual share in and control of the House of Commons, unless they had fully one half of the House of Commons— (cheers)—and the remainder of society the other half. In answer to questions, Mr. Mill said that he would vote for the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday. He did not think it would be a wrong thing to open well-conducted theatres on that day, though he should not be prepared to vote for that at present, as he thought it would be considered an affront to the religious opinions of a large and highly respectable portion of the public. Neither upon this nor any other question would he press his opinion on the Legislature, if he thought the vast majority of the people were not prepared for the proposed change. He did not think that the exercise of the franchise should depend on the payment of rates. The duration of Parliament should be from three to five years. Mr. Hubbard's proposal respecting the income tax was, he thought, a good one.2 Ifaprimdfacie case were made out that it was necessary for convents to be inspected, he would have them inspected; but if there were any such "dreadful mysteries" in the convents,3 he believed the inmates of those places would be a vast deal too clever for her Majesty's inspectors to find them out. A variety of other questions were put, and answered to the complete satisfaction of the meeting. A resolution expressive of confidence in Mr. J.S. Mill as a fit and proper candidate was carried amidst great applause. Some other speeches were delivered, and the meeting separated.

11. The Westminster Election of 1865 [7] 12 JULY, 1865 Morning Star, 13 July, 1865, p. 2. Headed "Westminster." The meeting was also reported in The Times, the Daily News, and (very briefly and in the third person) in the Daily Telegraph. The official declaration of the poll was at the hustings in Covent Garden at 2 p.m. A "dense mass of people " gathered in front of the hustings, crying out such remarks as "Where is Smith now? " A watering cart showered the crowd with cold water, quieting them briefly. The candidates and their friends began to appear on the hustings, Mill being "greeted with loud and long-continued cheers." Grosvenor was also given an enthusiastic reception; Smith did not appear. The poll was declared: Grosvenor at the head with 4534; Mill a very close second with 4525, and Smith with 3824. (The Daily News uniquely gives 2

John Gellibrand Hubbard (1805-89), then M.P. for Buckingham, who proposed a different tax rate for incomes derived from investments and from employment. See his "Draft Report" and "Memorandum" as Chairman in "Report from the Select Committee on Income and Property Tax," PP, 1861, VII, 303-18. For Mill's evidence before that Committee, see CW, Vol. V, pp. 549-98. 3 For an example of these words used in the context of Roman Catholicism, see a leading article on convents, The Times, 29 Mar., 1854, p. 9.

44

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 11

3224, undoubtedly in error.) Grosvenor spoke first. "Mr. Mill then proceeded to address the assembled crowd. Previous to doing so he was treated to a most enthusiastic ovation. The vast mass of persons present set up a cheer of the most hearty, thrilling character, which was kept up for some minutes, and which certainly must have had rather a startling effect on those who did not take part in it. Mr. Mill looked upon the exciting scene before him with that quiet, benign, and thoughtful expression of countenance for which he is so remarkable under all circumstances, and seemingly not the least moved or discomposed, except what was denoted by a pleasing smile which his intellectual features could not conceal, however desirous their owner may have been to do so. When the enthusiasm had subsided," Mill spoke.

ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER—not omitting the non-electors, many of whom have worked most vigorously in this cause—you have achieved a great triumph. (Cheers.} You have vindicated a principle "which has been the glory of a Westminster for generations. (Renewed cheers.) That principle is that members of Parliament should be elected on public grounds alone (Hear, hear, and cheers) and you have done this against all the means, legitimate and illegitimate, which could possibly have been brought to bear to prevent you. (Cheers.) This victory of yours illustrates very strongly two things. In the first place, it teaches a lesson which has been renewed from age to age, but which many have found it extremely hard to learn—fcthe power there is inb sincere, earnest, and disinterested conviction. All our working was the working of volunteers against opponents who were a disciplined and paid body. (Hear, hear, and cries of Smith.) All our friends voluntarily gave their time and their labour, which to most of them is money, and to some of them their "means of daily c bread, and even many of them gave money in addition for the purpose of defraying expenses rendered necessary by the bad system of carrying on elections which prevails d, but which they felt, even if necessary, ought to be paid for by any one rather than the candidate himself (hear, hear)d. All this they have done in the face of much opposition, and they have been successful. (Cheers.) Another thing to be learned from this victory is that it may induce persons to consider whether that mode of returning representatives can be good under which ethe side starting upon principles of electioneering purity is heavily weighted in the race—so heavily weighted, indeed, as to make the contest resemble a race between a man on foot and one on horseback? This simile may be regarded ase literally true, because my supporters had to walk to the poll, whilst the supporters of our opponents were carried there in a a

~ TT,DN] MS glorious to Westminster, a principle which has been glorious to *~bDN] MS a lesson which gives a power based on] TT the power of C C ~ DN] MS means of] TT daily

d-d+ TT

~TT] MS purity of election has to start so heavily weighted in the race as to be something like a man on foot against a man on horseback. (Hear, hear.} That is

July 1865

Westminster Election 1865 [7]

45

cabs and carriages not paid for by themselves. (Hear, hear, and a cry of Why did Grosvenor do it?) One of the greatest writers and orators which this country has produced, and who was at the head of the Liberal party ^during the best^ years of his life—I mean Burke— gsaid, "That system cannot be good which rests upon the heroic virtues."1 I dog say that the mode of election which rendered necessary such heroic exertions as have been made during the last few weeks to maintain purity of election cannot be good. (Hear, hear.) There is one more lesson which the electors of Westminster have given by the victory they have achieved. They have shown that whatever differences of opinion may exist amongst the several shades of Liberals, whatever severe criticisms they may occasionally make on each other, they are ready to help and co-operate with one another when the time of need arrives. This has been very provoking to many people. (A Voice: Yes, to Mr. Smith, and laughter.) I have often observed that those who are in the wrong think it a great shame when those who are in the right show some degree of common sense, as in the present instance—(hear, hear)—and that they entertain the notion that those who are honest must be fools as well. (Great laughter and cheering.) But you have proved to these persons that it is possible to be honest, sensible, ''and patriotic at the same time. h The Tories have done their worst. They have exercised all the powers that they could, particularly the force of money power—(hear}—but they have received a lesson they will not soon forget, and possibly they will think twice before they repeat it 'amongst the electors of Westminster'. \Loud cheers.} Gentlemen, I have done. {Loud and prolonged cheering, y This concluded Mr. Mill's remarks. On ceasing to address the assembly the enthusiasm which greeted his first appearance on the hustings was renewed. On the motion of Dr. Brewer, seconded by Capt. Grosvenor, a vote of thanks was, amidst cries for Smith, who did not put in an appearance, passed to the High Bailiff for the courtesy and efficiency he had displayed in the election.

'Edmund Burke (1729-97), Mr. Burke's Speech in Presenting to the House of Commons . . . a Plan for the Better Security of the Independence of Parliament (1780), in Works, 8 vols. (London: Dodsley [Vols. I-III], Rivington [Vols. IV-VIII], 1792-1827), Vol. II, p. 240. '-•tT] MS for many *-*TT] MS had a saying that that system cannot be good which rests on heroic efforts, and I] DN has a saying that that system cannot be good which rests on the heroic virtues, and I do A A - TT , aye, and practical too. (Cheers.) ''-'+DN J-J+TT

This page intentionally left blank

• • • February to August 1866 • • • 12. The Cattle Diseases Bill [ 1 ] 14 FEBRUARY, 1866 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 488-92. Reported in The Times, 15 February, p. 7, from which the variant and responses are taken. This, Mill's maiden speech in the House of Commons, was delivered in the debate on the second reading of "A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Contagious or Infectious Diseases in Cattle and Other Animals," 29 Victoria (12 Feb., 1866), PP, 1866,1,423-44. Mill says in his Autobiography that the speech "was thought at the time to have helped get rid of a provision in the Government measure which would have given to landholders a second indemnity, after they had already been once indemnified for the loss of some of their cattle by the increased selling price of the remainder" (CW, I, 277n).

MR. j. STUART MILL SAID, THAT in the course of the discussion on the Bill many important points had been raised, respecting some of which he was not in a position to form an opinion; and that being the case, he thought it better that he should leave all other topics to Her Majesty's Government, who had the best means of information, and who were responsible for the failure or success of the measures they might introduce. There was one question, however, which it required no agricultural or special knowledge to understand—that of compensation—it was a purely economical question, and upon this part of the Bill alone he thought himself competent to speak. This question had been raised by his honourable Friend the Member for Birmingham,1 and as his honourable Friend had been rather severely dealt with by the right honourable Gentleman behind him (Mr. Lowe),2 he thought that any one who shared the sentiments of his honourable Friend would be acting unworthily if he did not stand forward and avow them. (Hear.) He did not object to the principle of compensation, but he did object, in the highest degree, to the amount proposed in the Bill, and to the manner in which it was proposed to be provided. It was perfectly true, as his right honourable Friend (Mr. Lowe) had pointed out, that the farmers were to receive compensation, not for their losses as such, but for what they lost through the interference of the Government.3 He (Mr. J.S. Mill) quite agreed that there could not be a more just 'John Bright (1811-89), Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (14 Feb., 1866), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 476-80. 2 Robert Lowe (1811-92), M.P. for Calne, like Bright a Liberal, but increasingly critical of the party's leadership and direction, criticized Bright (ibid., cols. 483-8). 3 /W~b i rrirp

July 1868

The Fenian Prisoners [2]

315

adopt any measure to prevent imprisonment, imposed in lieu of a pecuniary payment, from being accompanied by the penal infliction of hard labour? Mr. Gathorne-Hardy replied, that he had not heard of this case till it was mentioned by the honourable Gentleman yesterday;1 but he had taken steps to obtain information. When he was fully informed on the subject he would state his impression as to whether there was any necessity for further legislation.

122. The Fenian Prisoners [2] 21 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1556-7. Reported in The Times, 22 July, p. 6, from which the variants are taken. See No. 117. John Vance (d. 1875), then M.P. for Armagh, asked Mill "Whether it is true, as reported in the Irishman newspaper, 14th July 1868, that he wrote a letter to Mr. Nevin, dated the 2nd July, in which he objected to ask a Question concerning the convicts Warren and Costello, because he 'thought that asking the Question publicly could do the prisoners no good, and would only enable the Government to claim and obtain credit for clemency'" (The Times). Mill had written a letter on 2 July, 1868, to George Francis Train (1829-1904), a U.S. merchant and author, who was in the U.K. working on behalf of the imprisoned Fenians (CW, Vol. XVII, p. 2015). The letter, which contains the passage quoted by Vance, was published in "George Francis Train's Levees," The Irishman, 18 July, 1868, p. 37. "Mr. Nevin" was a fictitious character invented by Train.

I BELIEVE, Sir, I am under no obligation to answer the honourable Member's Question, but I have not the smallest objection to do so. I have not seen the article in the Irishman, nor have I ever corresponded on any subject with that paper; nor, so far as I am aware, with Mr. Nevin. But I did write a letter to a friend of the two prisoners in question, which contained some words bearing some resemblance to those here quoted. Having been asked by a friend of the prisoners to put a Question concerning them, I thought it right before doing so to lay the case before the friends of the prisoners, in order that they might consider whether, from the point of view of the prisoners themselves, it was desirable or not that this Question should be "asked a. What words I used I cannot exactly remember; but the statement quoted conveys in two important particulars an extremely inaccurate notion of my sentiments. In the first place, it represents me as having been unwilling to ask the Question. I never was in the smallest degree unwilling, and, as the House is aware, I did ask the Question. Secondly, it represents me as unwilling that the Government should claim or obtain any credit *for clemency b. I desire extremely 'i.e., when he saw Mill's Notice of Motion (reported in The Times, 21 July, p. 9). a a

" TT] PD answered

b—b i rTfT

316

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 123

that the Government should both claim and obtain credit for everything meritorious that they have done.

123. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [10] 22 JULY, 1868 PD,3rdser., Vol. 193, cols. 1623,1639, 1640-1,1643, 1646, 1647-8, 1650. Reported in The Times, 23 July, p. 4. For the Bill, see No. 89. Consideration was being given to the Bill as amended, with indignation being expressed at the Government's now introducing new amendments and wishing to reconsider the Clause Fawcett had successfully moved on 18 July (see No. 120).

MR. j. STUART MILL SAID, the Solicitor General had misunderstood what it was the Opposition considered unfair conduct on the part of the Government.! No one dreamt of imputing unfairness to the Government in proposing to re-consider the decision of Saturday last;2 but what was complained of was that so short a Notice should have been given of their intention to rescind that decision. It was utterly impossible, when it became known long after post hour, to communicate with absent Members in time for them to attend in their places. He thought, after the indignant display of virtue on the part of the right honourable Gentleman at the Head of the Government, when the question of his honourable Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W.E. Forster) was asked on Monday,3 they had a right to complain of the unfairness of the Notice given by the Government. [After several amendments and new clauses were considered, Mill brought in his first motion. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill moved the following clause: At the trial of an Election Petition under this Act the judge shall have power to receive evidence of corrupt practices which any elector who shall have voted at the Parliamentary Election to which the Petition refers may have committed at any Municipal Election within the same county or borough within two years before the presentation of the Petition, with the object of proving that the voter was corruptly influenced in voting at the said Parliamentary 'Brett, cols. 1622-3. I.e., the approval of Fawcett's amendment (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1554). 3 For Forster's question on 20 July, 1868, concerning the Government's intentions with reference to Fawcett's amendment, and Disraeli's reply, see The Times, 21 July, p. 7 (PD does not report the exchange). 2

July 1868

Corrupt Practices at Elections [10]

317

Election; and any special Commission appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices shall have power to inquire into corrupt practices at Municipal Elections to the same extent and in the same manner as into corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections.

As he had expressed his sentiments on the subject of the clause on a former occasion he would not again trouble the House with any observations upon it.4 [The Solicitor General objected, as he and others had to Mill's earlier amendments involving municipal elections (see Nos. 116 and 118), that they were a separate matter. The Clause was rejected. ] [Mill then introduced his second motion. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill: Sir, I rise to move a clause declaring illegal the employment of paid canvassers, or paid agents other than the one appointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act.5 The clause is directed against the greatest of all the sources of undue expense at elections, especially in counties and large towns. It is well-known that when a candidate presents himself to a large constituency, determined to carry all before him by dint of money, a great part of his outlay consists in hiring canvassers, and they are hired by hundreds, very often without any real intention that they should canvass, and many of them never do canvass. Up to last year, under pretence of payment for canvassing, any number of electors might, without any breach of law, be paid for their votes. A clause, however, in the Reform Act, which the country is indebted to an honourable Member near me for proposing, and to the Government for accepting, has struck a blow at this mode of bribery, by enacting that no one in the actual pay of a candidate shall be allowed to vote.6 Hereafter, therefore, a man can no longer be paid in this manner for his own vote. But he can still be paid for the vote of his father, or his brother, or his wife's father or brother; and, besides, there is such a thing as collective bribery—bribery of a whole constituency, by spending money freely in the place. Every petty tradesman in the town is virtually bribed by a man who flings money about lavishly on all sides, most of which comes back almost immediately to be spent at their shops. All expenditure by which electors profit is a kind of bribery; and, though it may not be feasible to put a stop to all forms of it, still, if there be a form which answers no useful purpose whatever—unless confining the representation to millionaires be a useful purpose—this at least ought surely to be put a stop to. Now, what useful purpose, at this time of day, is promoted by personal canvassing? A seat in this House ought no more to be obtained by private solicitation than by money payment. The use of canvassing, when there was a use, 4

SeeNo. 116 (14 July, 1868). 17 & 18 Victoria, c. 102 (1854). 6 Sect. 11 of 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 102 (1867), proposed by John Candlish (1816-74), M.P. for Sunderland, on 1 July, 1867 (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 795-8), and accepted (ibid., col. 811). 5

318

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 123

was to make the candidate and his pretensions known to the constituency; but this is now done by addressing them in a body, through the Press or at public meetings. It is from the candidate's public addresses, or from the newspapers, that the electors even now learn all that they ever do learn about the candidate; they do not want canvassers to tell them. If there is to be canvassing, it ought to be done by volunteers. Everybody who has any business to be a candidate has a sufficient number of zealous supporters to do all the canvassing that can be needful. Acquaintances may talk to acquaintances, and neighbours to neighbours, and win them over by persuasion and moral influence; but what moral influence has a man who is paid for his persuasiveness? And what would the electors lose if they could only be talked to by somebody who believes what he says, and cares enough about it to say it gratis? [ The Solicitor General replied that there was nothing corrupt about employing ordinary paid canvassers. After some expressions of agreement with Mill, the Clause was lost (col. 1643). ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, it would be useless, after the division which had just been taken, for him to move the next clause of which he had given Notice, which was a supplement to the one just rejected.7

[Ayrton moved a new Clause to allow the Speaker to appoint attorneys for the House of Commons (cols. 1644-5). ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, that the only fault which he found with the Amendment of his honourable and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was, that it did not go far enough. His (Mr. Stuart Mill's) opinion was, that if they desired to put an end to corrupt practices they must provide a public prosecutor, and not rely upon the private interest of candidates and their supporters for proceeding against suspected individuals. They would never get rid of corrupt practices, unless they made it the duty of some particular person to inquire, not into compromises only, but into all matters connected with corrupt practices, and to institute prosecutions where evidences of corruption were found to exist. The proposed clause, however, was a good one as far as it went, and he should therefore give it his support. He hoped the Government would accept the clause. [Ayrton's Clause was rejected. ]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, he rose to move the following clause: (Provision for expenses of trials and inquiries.) The expenses of all trials or inquiries held under the present Act, except such expenses as are hereinbefore provided for, and except such part as the court or judge shall impose by way of penalty upon either the Petitioner or the Respondent, shall be defrayed in the case of 7

For the amendment, see Notices of Motions, and Orders of the Day, 1868, pp. 2089-90.

July 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [I]

319

any county from the county rate, and in the case of any borough, out of the monies, and in the manner and proportions mentioned in the Act of the sixth year of the reign of Victoria, chapter eighteen, section fifty-five, with respect to the expenses of carrying into effect the provisions of that Act; and the account of such expenses shall be made, allowed, and paid in the manner provided in the said Act, unless the court or judge shall certify that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices do not generally or extensively prevail in the constituency, in which case the said expenses shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund.

He desired to carry into effect what he considered was a true and sound principle—namely, to throw the expenses of all inquiries into corrupt practices upon the community who were implicated. He left to the tribunal to determine what portion of these expenses should in any case be laid, to the relief of the ratepayers, upon the persons who had been proved to be guilty of corrupt practices, or upon those who were shown to have brought frivolous and improper accusations. [The Attorney General objected, saying that costs should fall on the defeated party. The Clause was lost. ] [After some further discussion, it was moved that the forthcoming municipal elections be postponed for a month, to prevent bribery during them from affecting the imminent parliamentary elections. It was argued that the motion would upset the extensive arrangements already made for the municipal elections, although it was admitted that municipal corruption sometimes affected parliamentary elections. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, he could conceive nothing more stultifying than for the House, after having passed stringent measures for putting down corruption at Parliamentary Elections, to allow perfect freedom of corruption in the case of municipal Elections. There could be no greater facility given to bribery at the Parliamentary Elections than to have the municipal Elections taking place just before them. [The motion was lost (col. 1650). ]

124. The Westminster Election of 1868 [ 1 ] 22 JULY, 1868 Morning Star, 23 July, 1868, p. 3. Headed: "The Members for Westminster and Their Constituents. /Meeting in St. James's Hall Last Night." In a letter to Edwin Chadwick of 28 July, Mill says: "The correct and complete report of my speech at St. James's Hall is that of the Star" (CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1426). Reprinted in Addresses of the Hon. R.W. Grosvenor and J.S. Mill, Esq., Delivered at a Public Meeting of Their Constituents, Held at St. James's Hall, on the 22nd July, 1868 (London: Grosvenor and Mill Committee, Sept.,

320

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 124

1868), pp. 5-8. The full report in the Daily Telegraph (also in the first person) is so close in wording to that in the Morning Star as to suggest a common source; that in the Daily News is less full, and The Times merely summarizes Mill's speech. At the evening meeting the Chair was taken by Brewer; a large number of non-electors, including many women, attended. Brewer introduced the Members, and (as usual) Grosvenor spoke first, summarizing the history of the parliament from 1865. Mill " was received with the most enthusiastic applause, the whole meeting rising and joining in prolonged cheers" (Daily Telegraph).

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, my honourable colleague in his able address has given you a very interesting review of the past, and no man was better entitled to do so, for during the three years in which he has been your representative his conduct has been in complete conformity with the opinions and sentiments which you have heard from his lips. (Cheers.) aWe have been fellow-soldiers in one cause, and although we may perhaps represent, in some degree, different shades of the great Liberal party, and although some electors might, if there were a question between us, like my honourable colleague best, and some perhaps would prefer to be represented by me, I hope there is no one calling himself a Liberal who would not prefer either of us to a Tory. b(Loud applause and laughter. }b\ hope my friends, to whom alone I have a right to speak a few words, will consider the two Liberal candidates as one man. a (Cheers.) Ladies and gentlemen, as I have observed, my honourable colleague has dealt chiefly with the past, I will deal chiefly with the future. (Hear, hear.) We are assembled here under new circumstances. A great change has been made in our representative institutions, and the constituencies greatly enlarged in mere numbers, and still more improved by including in them portions of the community hitherto almost unrepresented, are now about to be asked what use they are going to make of their new power. Do they mean that the great addition which has been made to the strength of the popular element in our institutions shall bring forth fruit? Are they determined that the great alteration in the structure of our Government shall be attended with a corresponding improvement in its administration? The masses of the community have obtained, what they never had before, an influential voice in the conduct of the Legislature and of the executive. Is it their purpose that their interests, moral and material, shall be more and better attended to by the Legislature and the executive than has hitherto been the case? It depends on themselves. If they are indifferent to their own interests, they may be certain that other people will be indifferent too; but, if not—if they mean that the Government under which we are hereafter to live, shall be a good Government for the whole people, willing and able to cope with those great social difficulties which are pressing in upon us, and which we have got to conquer, or else they will conquer us—then it is time for them to bestir themselves, and as the first step in bestirring themselves, it is time for them to "-"P [in italic] *-*DT] MS,P (Loud cheers.)

July 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [1]

321

bethink themselves, and see how they can best use their electoral suffrage to bring this about. (Applause.) The nation has now to a considerable extent a new task before it, and one which demands different qualities in those who have it to perform. There are two kinds of improvements: one kind which, to enable them to be accomplished, only requires that the nation shall make up their mind that it shall be done. Nothing is wanted but the will; where there is the will there is no difficulty about the way. When once the nation had decided that the corn laws ought not to exist, it had only to say to the Parliament, "repeal them." Anybody could do it. When it was once determined that it had to be done it only required a few lines of an Act of Parliament.1 In the same manner the Irish Church, when the nation has determined, as I believe it has determined—(loud applause)—that it will no longer commit the great injustice of endowing with national property the Church of a small minority, and when it has also recognised that, in getting rid of this old iniquity, respect ought to be paid to life interests, it has only to make known its determination. The thing can be done almost as easily as said. (Laughter.) But the statesmanship of the country has much more to do nowadays than merely to abolish bad institutions. It has to make good laws for a state of society which never existed in the world before. We have to deal with a richer, a more struggling, and a more overcrowded society than our ancestors could have formed any conception of. A vast manufacturing and commercial industry has built itself up—no, not built itself, for there has been no building capacity, no constructive talent or foresight in the whole affair; neither can I say it has grown up, for growth supposes an internal principle of organisation and order, and there has been nothing of the kind—I can only say a vast manufacturing and commercial industry has thrown itself up—(loud laughter and applause)—by great energies, of which accident has almost alone determined the application; and from the necessities of the case, a hundred evils have sprung up along with it, which philanthropists are toiling after, with some, but with very imperfect, success. Now those evils are not of the kind respecting which the nation can say to its rulers "Do this," and they do it.2 There are now many things to be done which demand long and patient thought—more thought than the public of any rank or class are able to bestow. What the public have to do is to find men capable of doing these things—(applause)—and to send them to Parliament. (Loud cheers.) For instance, let us take the question which is in every one's mind at present—the proper relations between capital and labour. (Applause.) As I said, this question is in everybody's thoughts; yet how far has the public mind advanced on the subject? It has got thus far: that the old relation between workmen and employers is out of joint; that probably good laws would help to make things straight; but that there are many things which laws had better not attempt, as the result would probably be a break-down and a miscarriage. This, 'By 9 & 10 Victoria, c. 22 (1846). Cf. Luke, 7:8, and Matthew, 8:9.

2

322

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 124

then, is not a case in which the people can tell Parliament what to do; it has got to be found out what to do; and the business of the public is to send men to Parliament who can find it out. c Next, let me speak of our pauperism and our system of poor relief. We know the vices of the system, we know that vast sums are levied, and that those who most deserve and most need public charity are badly relieved. We know that the nursing of the sick, the care of the aged and helpless, the education of the young, are often, we do not know how often, a cruel mockery. (Loud cheers.) But what is the cause of this? Because these things are not so organised that the persons concerned are compelled to do their duty. And we shall never cure the evil by merely crying out when some very flagrant case is found out and published. What is wanted is to put into the important positions men of organising minds, who know how to make people do their duty, and who know how to give due and adequate relief to destitution without encouraging those to claim it who can do without it. Then, as to the state of our town populations. The poorer quarters of our great cities are nests of disease and vice for want of proper sanitary arrangements, and from the bad construction and wretched overcrowding of the dwellings of the poor. (Applause.) How are these things to be remedied? For I do not suppose any of you think that it is to be done by rebuilding these quarters out of the taxes, and inviting the poor to come and live in them rent free. (Laughter.) It is a matter for thought and study, and one which will tax to the utmost the highest legislative and administrative ability. Next, as to education. We are all determined that a good education the people shall have, cost what it may. (Loud applause.) About that I think we are all agreed, and if it could be done by mere good will, we should not have long to wait. But look at the schools we already have. Those for the higher and middle classes, still more than the elementary schools. There are enough of them, and they have funds enough, to give a good education to the whole nation, yet all classes, from the highest to the lowest, are wretchedly ill-taught. (Hear, hear.) Why is this? Because the teachers are unfit for their work, or, at all events, do not do it. (Applause.) And why do they not? Because those whose duty it was to appoint good schoolmasters appointed bad ones; because those whose duty it was to look after the teaching left it to take care of itself; and because parents did not take the trouble to ascertain whether their children were taught anything or nothing. Well, then, how are good schoolmasters to be obtained? And how are they to be kept to their duty? Unless we place national education in the hands of men who can do both these things, the end will be that we shall spend a great deal more money, and be no better taught than we are at present. Now turn to the great subject of administrative reform—how to obtain the most effective government at the smallest cost. We might have our persons and property far better protected than at present, paying much less for protection, but paying to competent persons for good service what is now jobbed away or wasted. We might have a defensive force C

P

[paragraph}

July 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [1]

323

much more effective than at present, for a fraction of what our army and navy cost us; but can it be had by merely willing it? No; it requires men with planning heads, organising and contriving minds, who, with a large theoretical and practical knowledge of the particular subjects, have also the art of governing men, and of managing bodies of men. Unless the nation find out and lift into the posts of favour and command men of this quality, our military and naval systems will remain failures for national purposes, and successes only for those who profit by them. In every branch of our government the great want is of capable men; and in order that the most capable men may be in office, it is necessary that the House of Commons, which decides who shall be in office, should be rich in capable men. (Hear, hear.) The people of England have an opportunity such as they have not had since the days of the Commonwealth. The present leader of the popular party sincerely desires to do for the people in these and on many other subjects the best that can be done—(great cheering)—if they will only put it in his power. But if the electors want this done, they must not think it enough to send men to Parliament who will support Mr. Gladstone; they must send men who can help Mr. Gladstone. (Loud applause.) One man cannot suffice for everything; whatever Mr. Gladstone can do by himself is incomparably well done; but what has now to be performed requires many eminent men, instead of one. A vote for a member of Parliament is always a grave moral responsibility. When one has a voice in deciding whether the well-being of this empire, and all the great things thereon dependent, shall be entrusted to a man who is fit or to a man who is unfit, nothing can excuse the elector who, for purposes of his own, or from indifference to the public good, votes for the wrong man and against the right. (Applause.} But on this occasion there is a peculiar obligation on the electors to search the country for the very best men that can be found, for the course of history for a whole generation may depend on it. I am not advising them to discard their present members when these have served them faithfully and intelligently, but there are many members who retire; many seats may be gained from Tories; and there is a considerable number of new constituencies.d I hope we shall re-elect all our Liberal members who are good for anything; but I hope we shall reinforce them by others who will carry with them into the House of Commons some better furniture than money-bags and pledges. (Loud cheers.) I hope the electors will be wiser than to elect men of whom they have no opinion; whom they dare not trust to examine and think for themselves, and whom they therefore send to the House with tied hands, under promise to do exactly as they are bid. For my part, I am not ashamed to say that both in public and in private affairs I desire to be represented by somebody who can tell me what ought to be done instead of my telling him, for I well know that I shall never be able to instruct him in half the things which he will have to decide; so that, unless I choose somebody who can inquire and judge for himself, my affairs will be **? [paragraph]

324

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 124

ill-managed. The electors are responsible to posterity; they are responsible to the unrepresented; they are responsible to the innumerable inhabitants of England's foreign dependencies, and they are responsible to their own consciences for sending to the next Parliament thoughtful men, and men with talents for government; and unless they rise to the height of this duty, the great benefits which we are entitled to expect from the reform in our institutions will be reaped much more slowly, and for a long time more imperfectly, than we would willingly hope. (Mr. Mill resumed his seat amidst loud and continued cheering.) An Elector wished to know what the honourable members thought about the question of equalization of poor rates in the metropolis. [ Grosvenor said to cheers that he was in favour of equalization of rates. ] Mr. Mill thought that every community was entitled to one administration of the poor laws. (Cheers.) In answer to another Elector, Mr. Mill said ehe would induce guardians to perform their duties both by reorganisation and by means of a controlling authority. The principles of a good poor law are to give relief to unavoidable destitution in such a manner that those who can support themselves shall have no chance of obtaining, and no motive for claiming, ite. (Cheers.) He might be compelled to accept a division of the metropolis with reference to the administration of the poor law, but he thought the rates should be the same throughout the whole of the metropolis because its inhabitants suffered from each other's sickness and poverty. (Cheers.) Mr. Webber wished to know what steps the honourable members had taken to reduce our enormous national expenditure. Captain Grosvenor said that, with the view of reducing that expenditure, he would endeavour to place Mr. Gladstone on the Treasury Bench. (Cheers.) Mr. Mill said his honourable colleague had given exactly the answer which he himself should have given. In answer to another Elector, [Grosvenor said he favoured opening museums on Sunday, but would not pledge himself; unquestionably he was not in favour of opening places of amusement on Sundays. ] Mr. Mill said he should be willing, without hesitation, to vote for the opening of any place of instructive amusement. As to theatres and similar places they might, he believed, be made places of instructive amusement, but he believed they were very seldom such. Whether they were or not, the opening of them in the present state of the public mind would shock the feelings of many good people f, and he advised those who wish to open such places as those referred to on Sunday, to limit themselves to the more useful kind (hear, hear)f. e ~T)T] MS the principles of a good poor law were the giving of relief to unavoidable destitution in such a manner that those should have no chance of obtaining relief who could support themselves by their labour /-/+DT

July 1868

Corrupt Practices at Elections [11]

325

In answer to another Elector, [ Grosvenor said that probably some of the funds taken from the Church in Ireland would be applied to all the religions professed in Ireland. ] Mr. Mill gsaid while there was agreement between himself and his honourable colleague on the great principle of religious equality, there was some difference between them in its application. He opposed the application of any of the property of the Irish Church to the support of any clergy or any sectarian denomination8. (Cheers, and cries of Bravo.) [Probyn moved, Real seconding, approbation of the Members, and full support of them jointly, sinking "all minor differences. " An amendment was moved by B.B. Sapwell, to "expressions of disapprobation, " that the unsatisfactory views expressed by the Members disqualified them as representatives for Westminster. " The speaker went on to make some remarks in support of his amendment, but the storm of groans, hisses, and other discordant sounds was so great that what he said was inaudible. " But "on the interposition of Mr. Mill, Mr. Mason Jones, and the chairman" (Daily Telegraph), he was allowed to complete his remarks, and Ross rose to second the amendment, bringing on another round of disturbance; the amendment was defeated. Harriet Law then spoke, to loud cheers, in favour of the motion and of suffrage for women. The motion being passed (the Chair having ruled against the proposal of a " lady near the platform " that the names of the Members be put separately), the customary vote of thanks to the Chair was moved, and then Fawcett arrived; in seconding the motion, he described Mill's "assiduous attention to his duties, and remarked that his defeat—which he could not believe possible—would be an injury to the House of Commons, a loss to the Liberal party, and a blowfrom which the great cause of democracy throughout the world would not recover for years" (Daily Telegraph). The vote of thanks was carried, and the meeting ended. ]

125. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [11] 23 JULY, 1868 PD,3rdser., Vol. 193, cols. 1676,1678,1685,1691. Reported in TheTimes, 24 July, p. 6. For the Bill, see No. 89. The debate was on a new Clause:" Whenever any person or persons shall have been reported by the Judges to have been guilty of corrupt practices, the Attorney General shall institute against such persons or person such proceedings as the law will allow "(col. 1676). *~*DT] MS objected to any portion of those funds being appropriated to the support of any clergy or sectarian body

326

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 125

MR. j. STUART MILL thought it very important that some official person should be charged with the duty of considering whether a prosecution was necessary or not. [ The Clause was negatived. ] [Then Lowther moved to amend Clause 43 (see No. 116) to make repeated corruption a misdemeanour. This modification the Attorney General thought too harsh: an agent who had already been punished for corruption, if he got another appointment within seven years, would be liable to two years' imprisonment. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, he hoped the House would divide, as the country would like to see the names of the honourable Members who thought it was too severe a course to punish an agent or canvasser who, having been guilty of corrupt practices in one election, procured similar employment in a subsequent election. [ The amendment was lost. ] [The debate then returned to Clause 53 (Fawcett's clause; see No. 120). Various amendments were moved concerning a deposit to be used for election costs if the candidate failed to poll certain percentages of the vote. Wentworth Blackett Beaumont (1829-1907), M.P.for Northumberland, proposed that the percentage should be one-fifth of the votes cast, the failed candidate being liable for his share of the costs, and after some discussion added that the proposer and seconder of such a candidate should be liable for that share (cols. 1681-2). George Leeman (1809-82), M.P.for York, proposed an amendment retaining the one-fifth provision, but calling for a deposit of £100 in boroughs and £200 in counties. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill thought the object which the honourable Member for York had in view would be sufficiently attained by the proposal of the honourable Member for Northumberland. [Leeman withdrew his amendment, and then the proposal of Beaumont was defeated. The Government continued to try to subvert Fawcett's Clause 53; the Solicitor General moved to leave it out (cols. 1687-8), saying in defence of his motion that the obscure and intricate machinery of rating would make the Clause impracticable. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill: If the Government were aware of the profound feeling of satisfaction that went forth through the country on learning that the Amendment of the honourable Member for Brighton was carried, they would, instead of imposing any technical objection in the way of the passing of the clause, introduce a Bill, if necessary, for the purpose of giving it effect, and pass it through both Houses, as they could easily do, within a week. The representative of an extensive constituency remarked to me that the adoption of the clause marked the commencement of a purer era, and would bring forward more eligible candidates. [In the event, Clause 53 was struck out of the Bill. ]

July 1868

Corrupt Practices at Elections [12]

327

126. Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [12] 24 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1729-30. Reported in The Times, 25 July, p. 7, from which the response is taken. For the Bill, see No. 89. As the third reading began, Fawcett moved an amendment to recommit the Bill to consider the question of providing for election officers' expenses out of the rates (col. 1716). Mill spoke after Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), then M.P. for Norfolk East (col. 1729). Writing to W.D. Christie on 27 July, 1868, Mill says: " You will have seen that after many days and nights of hard fighting, all our efforts to improve the Bribery Bill have been defeated, even Fawcett's clause being at last negatived. Good however has been done by the discussion, and a foundation laid for future success, as even the Saturday Review acknowledges. The Bill has, as you see, been extended to Scotland and Ireland. But its good effects, as it stands at present, will not be very great." (CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1425.) For a later reference to the matter, see his letter to C.W. Dilke on 14 February, 1872 (CW, Vol. XVII, pp. 1871-2). THE HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN who has just sat down seems to think that unexpensiveness and purity of election is a matter which affects the electors only, and that the non-electors have no interest in the matter—a view in which I confess I do not share. I do not propose to revive the question of how far the Government has treated us fairly in regard to this matter. We must accept the statement of the First Minister of the Crown that at the time when he replied to the question of the honourable Member for Bradford (Mr. W.E. Forster) the Government had no intention of opposing this clause.1 But when the right honourable Gentleman proceeds to give a history—the correctness of which is countersigned by the right honourable Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley)2—of what has passed, and says that the House have rejected as ineffectual all propositions to reconcile the scheme of the honourable Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett)3 with the desirableness of giving security against vexatious contests, I cannot assent to the correctness of his statement. There was not one of the proposals made which would not, in the opinion of the supporters of the clause, have proved perfectly effectual. The objections did not turn on the efficacy of the proposals, but on which of them was most likely to pass the House. They were overthrown by the action of the Government, but the right honourable Gentleman has not shown that there would be any difficulty in working them. The course pursued fully illustrates the old proverb " None so deaf as those who won't hear." Does anyone think that if the right honourable Gentleman applied his mind to the subject every difficulty would not quickly vanish? We have an apt illustration of the mountain-like magnitude 'For Forster's question and Disraeli's response on 20 July, 1868, see The Times, 21 July, p. 7. 2 Cols. 1727-8. 3 Fawcett, motion of 18 July, cols. 1443-4.

328

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 127

that molehill objections may assume, in the argument of one honourable Gentleman—that if a little more money than enough is taken from the county rate for the purpose of paying election expenses it will be impossible to know what to do with the balance.4 We have heard of lions in the path,5 but difficulties such as these are snails or earwigs in the path, and not lions. Were the Government aware of the feeling of satisfaction that went through the country along with the news that the clause of the honourable Member for Brighton was carried, they would, I think, instead of throwing technical difficulties in the way of its adoption, rather bring it in in the form of a separate Bill than lose the chance of its passing. I hope, therefore, that the Motion to re-commit the Bill will be carried. (Divide, divide!} [Fawcett's amendment was lost, and the Bill received its third reading (col. 1732).]

127. Smoking in Railway Carriages [ 1 ] 24 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1736. Reported in The Times, 25 July, p. 7. In Committee on "A Bill Intituled An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Railways, "31 Victoria (28 May, 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 513-30, the discussion was on a motion to insert after Clause 17 the following clause: " And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers " (col. 1735). It being objected that some trains having so few carriages, or even only one, such a policy was impracticable, Mill made his first intervention.

MR. j. STUART MILL SUGGESTED THAT the provision should be made to apply only to trains of a certain length. The abuse of smoking had become so great, and the violation of the companies' by-laws so frequent, that the smoking in trains had become a positive nuisance. Scarcely a railway carriage could be entered in which smoking was not going on, or which was not tainted with stale tobacco. [It was remarked that the issue should be settled by public opinion. ] Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, public opinion in this instance was swayed by a majority of smokers. It was a case of oppression by a majority of a minority.

4

John Floyer (1811-87), M.P. for Dorset, col. 1723. Proverbs, 26:13.

5

July 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [2]

329

128. The Westminster Election of 1868 [2] 24 JULY, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 25 July, 1868, p. 5. Headed: " Election Intelligence. / Westminster. " The report of Mill's speech in the Daily News agrees so closely with that in the Daily Telegraph as to suggest that they were taken from a single report, or that Mill supplied copy to both papers. The Times has only a brief summary of the proceedings; its account, however, provides an introductory topic linking Mill's speech to the conclusion of Grosvenor's, and gives more of the substance of the question period than does the Daily Telegraph. The Morning Star gives only Gladstone's letter. This election speech, like No. 124, was delivered while Parliament was still in session. Mill and Grosvenor addressed their constituents in an evening public meeting, chaired by Dr. Brewer, in the Pimlico Rooms, Warwick Street. Brewer opened the proceedings by reading a letter from Gladstone which lightly touched on the undesirability of W.H. Smith's representing Westminster, and then briefly praised Grosvenor before saying: "Of Mr. Mill, who has obtained a world-wide fame, it would almost be impertinent in me to speak the language of eulogy. Yet I will venture on two assertions, both having exclusive reference to his Parliamentary career. Firm in the maintenance of his own opinions, Mr. Mill has ever exhibited the largest indulgence for those of others; and with this liberal tolerance of differences he has shown, in the most remarkable manner, how to reconcile on the one hand a thorough independence, and on the other an enlightened sense of the value and power of that kind of union which is designated by the name of political party. More than this, Mr. Mill has set us all a rare example of forgiving temper, of forgetfulness of self, of absolute devotion to public duty; and I do not hesitate to express my deliberate opinion that his presence in the House of Commons has materially helped to raise and sustain its moral tone." Grosvenor as usual spoke before Mill, alluding to Smith's candidature (and thereby provoking an interruption that led, against Mill's and the Chair's wishes, to an ejection), and reviewing the Government's record. He closed with an attack on the Metropolitan Cattle Market measure, and then Mill, who "met with an enthusiastic reception," rose. Q

MR. MILL THEN ADDRESSED THE MEETING. He spoke in strong terms against the Metropolitan Cattle Markets Bill, which he said would have his most strenuous opposition.al He said that during the last two or three weeks he and his colleague had been engaged several days in each week, and latterly two or three days in succession, in endeavouring to prevent the electors of Westminster and throughout the country being given over into the hands of millionaires, and they had failed. (A Voice: More's the pity.) He said, more was the shame. (Hear, hear.) When the present Government introduced the Bribery Bill,2 he really was in hopes that there was something like an intention to suppress, if possible, the bad practices prevailing at our elections. The Government took one rather bold step—they h 'A Bill for the Establishment of a Foreign Cattle Market for the Metropolis," 31 Victoria (5 Dec., 1867), PP, 1867-68, III, 387-94 (not enacted). 2 See No. 89. a-a+TT

330

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 128

asked the House of Commons, tenacious as that assembly was of its privileges, to give up the power of judging as to the extent to which corruption might have prevailed at elections. That power had hitherto been in the hands of the committees of the House of Commons, and the Government asked Parliament to transfer it to the judges of the land. They thought, and he thought, those judges were not so likely to sympathise with the offenders as the very class from which the offenders were drawn, and who were therefore placed in the same circumstances of temptation as themselves; and besides the change of tribunal, the Government proposed to increase the penalties upon the offenders. This gave him hopes. He thought there was coming from the Tories something substantial for the prevention of corruption. The meeting were not to think him credulous. It was very possible for Tories to be sincere in what might favour their cause at elections. (Laughter.) In the terrible struggle which had been going on for some weeks, almost from day to day, to endeavour to introduce into the bill precautions against corruption at elections, and to prevent that improper expense which made it impossible for any but rich men to gain a seat in Parliament, no persons stood more consistently by those who promoted the effort, and more honourably, than ten or a dozen Tories—high-minded honourable men, who would not owe a seat in Parliament to corruption. (Cheers.) That very day he had listened to a speech which had done his heart good—he meant the speech of Mr. Corrance, the Tory member for Suffolk.3 Mr. Corrance complained of the great increase of rates, and the disproportionate degree in which, in his opinion, those rates would fall upon landed property; but notwithstanding, when he was told that purity of election, inexpensiveness of election, would be secured by so much as even a farthing or half a farthing increase of rates, he scorned the circumstance, and said that he and all the best agriculturists would much rather pay higher rates, if by that they could obtain better and more capable members of Parliament. (Cheers.) This was said in the language and tone which was irresistibly and unmistakeably characteristic of an honest man. He could name several other Tories who, not only by their votes, but by motions and speeches did what they could. But it was all in vain. After the Ministers had carried their own original proposition for a change of jurisdiction, not one single improvement would they allow to be made in the bill. One after another, Liberal and honest Tory members moved resolution after resolution, and amendment after amendment, and pressed these to a division, every one of which had for its object to make elections purer and cheaper. But not one of them would the Government suffer to be carried. Many Liberal members had gone into the country, to which they generally rushed at this period of the session—and he was sorry to say it was the period at which all tricks were perpetrated—(hear, hear)—and by this combination of causes those who promoted improvement had been defeated. As far as concerned the present Government, electors were now delivered into the 3

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1730-2.

July 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [2]

331

hands of millionaires. Two instances he would mention as peculiarly remarkable in this way. He then referred to the result of Professor Fawcett's amendment and that of Mr. Schreiber.4 Continuing, he said he gave credit to the Government for a slight preference for honesty when they introduced the bill, but he had no doubt b thatfo Mr. Spofforth, who managed the elections for the Tory party, who knew all that was going on everywhere, and in every constituency in the Tory camp as well as any man living — he had no doubt this individual told his friends in the Cabinet they must not, at this election at least, put these practices at an end; if they acted too rigidly it was very much to be feared some of their members would not get in. (Laughter. ) The honourable gentleman resumed his seat amid loud applause, excusing himself for not further detaining the meeting by his anxiety to be present at the division on the Foreign Cattle Markets Bill. Both he and Captain Grosvenor were catechised as usual. cln reply to an Elector, he said that he had been in favour of the ballot, but was not in favour of it now . He thought that it rested with the electors themselves, who, if they were to band together after the manner of trades unions, might check electoral bribery and intimidation. c d Another Elector asked what the opinions of the members for Westminster were as to the reform of the House of Lords, and whether Bishops would not be better turned out. [Grosvenor said he had not thought about the matter, but such a change was not imminent. ] Mr. Mill, in reply, said that he had his opinions on the matter, and they could be obtained by any elector for \%d. in the form of a book.5 He thought that the better House of Commons they got the better Bishops they would have. d e As to the game laws, Grosvenor expressed himself in favour of some equitable arrangement between landlord and tenant; and Mr. Mill said that he should like the game to belong to him who fed it.6 4

For Fawcett's amendment, see Nos. 120, 123, and 125. Charles Schreiber (1826-84), M.P. for Cheltenham and Poole, on 22 July moved that municipal elections be postponed until after the parliamentary elections (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1649-50). 5 The People's Edition of Considerations on Representative Government (London: Longman, etal., 1865), pp. 100-1 (CW, Vol. XIX, pp. 517-19). 'The Game Law of 1831 ( 1 & 2 William IV, c. 32) allowed all to hunt who possessed a licence, but trespass was forbidden; the abiding dispute was over the right to hunt on leased land. 6 -"+DN c-c+TT d -dTT] DT In reply to one question as to the propriety of bishops having seats in the Lords, Mr. Mill said he did not think they were a very valuable element in that assembly. But until we took the whole subject of the proper constitution and proper position of the Church of England into consideration, as he supposed we some day should—laying sarcastic emphasis upon the words—he did not suppose we should get better bishops unless we got better ministers. e ~*TT] DT,DN A vote, pledging the meeting to support the honourable candidates, closed the proceedings.

332

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 129

An Elector having put a question as to the duration of Parliaments, the Honourable Mr. Grosvenor said that the average duration of Parliaments at present was three, four, and five years, and he thought that quite short enough. Mr. Mill said that that was also his opinion. In reply to another Elector, Mr. Mill expressed himself favourable to the Abyssinian war. It had been treated as a necessary evil, and carried out with every sentiment of honour and of justice.7 A resolution was then passed, pledging the meeting to support the two speakers in the forthcoming contest; and a vote of thanks to the chairman brought the proceedings to a close.e

129. The Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market 25 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd set., Vol. 193, col. 1780. Reported in The Times, 27 July, p. 6, from which the variant is taken. The Government had announced the previous night that it was withdrawing the Bill (for which, see No. 128), so on the order for Committee on its re-commitment, Montagu moved that the order be discharged (col. 1775). Nonetheless Members, including Mill, offered opinions on the measure.

MR. J. STUART MILL wished only to make one suggestion, which he was sure the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) would take in good part—that if he drew up a new Bill, its provisions should be confined "not to cattle from infected countries, which should be entirely excluded, but 0 to cattle from suspected countries. If this were done there would very soon be no suspected countries. The two principal countries suspected were Holland and Prussia, both of which had a very valuable trade with us in their own cattle; and if they found that this trade was stopped because they allowed cattle from infected countries to pass through them, they would soon see the expediency of ceasing to do so. The proposed new market would then be superfluous, or could be made supplementary to the present market. 7

In December of 1863, Theodore, King of Abyssinia, unhappy with the refusal of the British government to respond favourably to his diplomatic overtures, took captive the British Consul and a number of missionaries. Non-military efforts to secure their release having failed, an expedition was launched in the summer of 1867 under Robert Cornells Napier (1810-90); it was quickly successful in freeing the captives, and Theodore committed suicide. When Napier was created Baron Napier of Magdala in recognition of his triumph, Mill submitted a petition in objection from a group in Macclesfield; he explained his action as being simply in accord with his view that citizens' positions should be known. The questioner here was undoubtedly prompted by Conservative efforts to portray Mill as unpatriotic. a a + Tp

July 1868

Smoking in Railway Carriages [2]

333

130. Smoking in Railway Carriages [2] 25 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1789-90. Reported in The Times, 27 July, p. 6. On consideration of the Regulation of Railways Bill (see No. 127), Mill spoke during the discussion of a proposed Clause: "And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train where there are more carriages than one of each class, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers" (col. 1787).

MR. J. STUART MILL THOUGHT THAT the permission sought to be given to smokers travelling by railways, by the proposal before the House, was right and proper; and, for the reasons which had been already urged by honourable Members who had preceded him, he thought that the permission was especially desirous in the case of passengers going long journeys; but he thought that smoking compartments should be in connection with the hindermost carriages. [The Clause in slightly amended form was accepted, and the Bill was approved. ]

131. Imprisonment for Costs on a Dismissed Charge [2] 27 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1826. Not reported in The Times. See No. 121.

MR. J. STUART MILL SAID, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in possession of any information respecting the circumstances under which Mr. Castle, of Melton Mowbray, was sentenced to imprisonment and hard labour for non-payment of costs? Mr. Gathorne-Hardy: Sir, I have received some information on the subject, from which it appears that Mr. Castle had taken proceedings against a man for using threatening and abusive language. The summons was dismissed, and Mr. Castle was ordered to pay the costs, or to be imprisoned with hard labour. I may mention that the Act, commonly known as Jervis's Act,1 gives the magistrate discretionary power to impose imprisonment with or without hard labour. Mr. Castle, it further appears, has been several times imprisoned for non-payment of costs, or things of that sort. On this occasion, however, somebody, to prevent his going to prison, came forward and paid the costs for him, and therefore he was not l ll & 12 Victoria, c. 43 (1848), associated with John Jervis (1802-56), M.P. for Chester until he became Lord Chief Justice of Common Pleas in 1850.

334

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 132

imprisoned at all, nor was he put to the slightest inconvenience, though he protested loudly against the interference of his friends, and professed himself very desirous of undergoing imprisonment.

132. Poor Relief [2] 27 JULY, 1868 PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1885-6. Reported in The Times, 28 July, p. 6, from which the variant is taken. In Committee on the Poor Relief Bill (see No. 119), discussion was on a Clause proposed by John Harvey Lewis to the effect that lands and buildings acquired and used under the Poor Law Acts be exempted from increased assessment (col. 1885).

MR. J. STUART MILL SAID, he had given Notice of a clause of similar effect, though not going so far as that proposed by the honourable Member for Marylebone (Mr. Harvey Lewis). No injustice would be done to any locality by the adoption of the clause of which he had given notice.l Its principle was that asylums, hospitals, and other buildings, and all land used or occupied therewith for the purposes of the Metropolis Poor Act, 1867,2 should be assessed for rates upon the annual value of the site, and any buildings on it at the time of the purchase. [ The Clause was negatived (col. 1886). ] a Mr. Mill next moved a clause regulating assessment on asylums, etc., used for the purposes of the Metropolis Poor Act, 1867. [ The Clause was negatived without a division, and after two more clauses were negatived, ] Mr. Mill again brought up the proposal which had been negatived in an altered form, which he contended made a new clause of it, but it was negatived without a discussion.a

133. The Westminster Election of 1868 [3] 2 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 3 November, 1 868, p. 2. Headed: "Election Movements. / Westminster. " Reported in slightly less full form in The Times and the Morning Star (both in the third 'For the proposed amendment, see Notices of Motions, and Orders of the Day, 1868, p. 2007. 2 30 Victoria, c. 6 (1867), Sects. 31, 32, and 55. a-a+TT

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [3]

335

person); the report of Mill's remarks in the Daily News is shorter. In a letter to Edwin Chadwick on 7 November, Mill says, "the papers have given only the most trumpery reports of any of my speeches except the first [on 2 November], which was comparatively commonplace; and of that, the only good report that I saw was in the Telegraph. All have been immensely successful." (CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1481.) The meeting of Mill and Grosvenor with their constituents was held at 8 p.m. in the Regent Music Hall, Regent Street, Vauxhall Bridge Road, with Dr. Lankester in the chair. The large room was densely crowded, many women being in attendance. Lankester, in introducing the Members, reminded the audience that he had presided over the meeting when Mill had first addressed the electors in 1865 (5 July; see No. 6). Grosvenor again spoke first. Mill rose "amid the loud cheers of the audience."

ELECTORS OF WESTMINSTER—I need hardly now add non-electors, for I believe and hope that by far the greater part of those whom I have now the honour to address, if they were not electors formerly, are so now. If they are not electors now, they will be as soon as the obstacles thrown in the way shall have been removed as far as possible, as I trust they will be, by the new Parliament. 1 therefore need not say electors and non-electors—but I will say old electors and new electors of Westminster—the question, the issue, which is presented to you at this general election I take to be as simple an issue as ever came before an electoral body. You have not got to decide between one Liberal and another, or between one school or one shade of Liberalism and another. There are constituencies that have this choice to make, and I can conceive that when they have this choice to make there may be difficulties and grounds for much discussion and difference of opinion; and I hope that the constituencies that may find themselves in this position will come to some clear decision and understanding before it comes to the day of polling a, and thereby destroy all hope of Tory candidates being returned at the head of the poll" —(hear, hear)—and I speak this disinterestedly. The example which has just now been set in the great new borough of Chelsea—that example is well worthy of imitation by Liberals of all shades. I deeply regret that Mr. Odger—(cheers)—has been under the necessity—as a man of honour, and as a man who preferred his cause to himself, Liberalism and the good of his country to his personal feelings or vanity, or even his own opinions—to retire from the candidature for the representation of Chelsea. l I applaud Mr. Odger. I highly appreciate his conduct, and I deeply regret that he is the candidate who has had to retire. (Interruption.) I hope that those who supported him in his candidature will support the Liberal cause b, and that they will be united, Liberals of all shades of opinion, in the grand and paramount object of keeping out a Tory*. In this city you 'George Odger (1820-77), trade unionist, Secretary of the London Trades Council, having failed to gain election in Staffordshire, had put his name forward in Chelsea, but had retired to avoid splitting the left-Liberal vote (Dilke was elected). a - a+TT b-*+TT [in past tense]

336

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 133

have no such choice to make. It is not between Liberal and Liberal, or even between professed Liberal and professed Liberal. It is between Liberals and Tories, or rather a Tory. CI am not aware that the gentleman who has presented himself—as he did before—to oppose your present members claims your suffrages on any other grounds than that of being a Tory. c2 1 am not aware that he gives you any other reason to support him, excepting that he will support a Tory Ministry. The question before you is the simplest possible. It is whether you, who have got a Reform Bill, will have as the fruits of that Reform Bill a Tory Administration? (No, no.) Will you have a popular and Liberal representative system and a Tory Government? (No, no.) It would be peculiarly out of place if you were to have any hesitation on this subject. (Interruption.) The Chairman hoped that the meeting would keep quiet, as they would then be able to hear Mr. Mill. It would be peculiarly out of place if any Liberal—more especially any advanced Liberal—were to have any hesitation on this subject, when the Liberal party has such a chief as I venture to say it has not had for centuries. (Cheers.) I do not believe that any one here will contradict me when I say that the one statesman in this country who, perhaps, more than any other within living memory has the confidence of the people, is Mr. Gladstone—(loud cheers)—who has the confidence of the mass of the people. The public believe that he is one who plans measures for the public good, who invites public support, who does not wait until there is a cry raised outside, not merely for something, but for the precise measure he brings forward; but he employs his own mind, his time, and thought to devise measures for the public good, and endeavours to put in practice the means of successfully carrying them. (Cheers.) With such a man at the head of the Liberal party, rfwho is, in my opinion, the only possible chief of the Liberal party at the present day,d I think any Liberal, of any shade whatever, would prove himself to be false to his principles if he were—I won't say to vote for a Tory against persons who would support Mr. Gladstone, but if he failed to vote for those who would support Mr. Gladstone. When the choice is between persons who would support Mr. Gladstone and those who would vote against him, the choice, as I say, is extremely simple. (Cheers.) There are some persons, whose Liberalism is not insincere, cwho flatter themselves with what appears to me an extremely false and misapplied notion,e who fancy it is not of much importance who is Minister, and who think there is perhaps some advantage in having the Tories in place, because 2

W.H. Smith, who had been defeated by Grosvenor and Mill in 1865.

C C

~ DN The gentleman who was now before them as a supporter of the present government did not base his claims upon anything other than the fact that he would vote with Mr. Disraeli, and it was well known that no measures of reform were proposed by that right honourable gentleman of his own free will. (Cheers.)] MS The more opponents Mr. Disraeli had the better measures he would give. He (Mr. Mill) did not think the Tory candidate would compel Mr. Disraeli; he possibly might follow him. d-d+TT [in third person, past tense] e e ~ +TT [ in third person, past tense ]

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [3]

337

when they are in place you can force them to pass Liberal measures, which, if they were out of place, they would oppose. (Oh.) According to this you are to give them place and office in order that you may make them the instruments of carrying things against their convictions. Now, I do not mean to say anything about the morality of this. Your own minds will say whether it is a good thing to hold out inducements to make people, in the greatest of matters, act against their convictions? (Hear, hear.) I won't enter into this at all, but what I will say is this—you have no occasion to do it. If you return a sufficient majority to the House of Commons you are sure to carry any measure which you deliberately say you ought to have. (Cheers.) We are told you can carry measures through the House of Commons, but that the Tories are masters of the House of Lords, and that if you turn out the Tories they won't let Mr. Gladstone's measures pass through the House of Lords. (A cry,—Do away with them, then.) We will see what this comes to. This would be making the House of Lords determine who should form the Government of this country. (Hear, hear.) That was a power which the House of Lords never had before, and which they never claimed. The House of Lords has the power to prevent the passing of laws, or rather, I should say, of delaying them for some years. (A laugh.) The power of refusing to pass laws has gone by, or you would never have had the Reform Bill. (Hear, hear.) Of all the great measures which have made this country so improved as it is from what it was in Tory times, there is not one which the House of Lords has not resisted as long as it could. If they had succeeded, you would neither have had Parliamentary Reform nor measures so comparatively unimportant as the abolition of church rates3 or the admission of Jews to equal power with other people.4 Great or small, the House of Lords has shown its desire to prevent good legislation. In order to bribe them to get laws passed a little sooner than you could by a strong administration of your own, you are to give them the power of framing those bills and drawing them up. You know that their drawing up would be as far from your wishes as the Reform Bill brought in by the present Government was like the Reform Bill that passed the House. (Hear, hear.) You are asked to give them the power of framing bills in order that effect may be given to your political purposes. You are to give them a power of enjoying a government which was not their right even under the old constitution before the constitution was reformed. The House of Lords never claimed the power to say what should be the Government. Now you are to give the Lords power to cover the bench with Tory justices. They have covered half the bench with Tories during the two years they have been in power already. You are to give them power to cover the bench of bishops with Tories. You are to give them the power to appoint governors and viceroys. They are not so bad as to make all Tories, for they have done something better than that; their power in that direction 3

By 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 109 (1868). Initially by 21 & 22 Victoria, c. 49 (1858), and then by 29 Victoria, c. 19 (1866).

338

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 133

is limited, but unlimited is the evil of holding out a prospect to ambitious people throughout the country to induce them to become Tories in order to gratify their ambition. The wavering man, the active lawyer, the active and rising clergyman, and the military man, or the civil servant of the Crown, who would like to have a governorship—all these are things to tempt a Tory Government to remain in power. But if these principles were acted upon, personal interest would be so placed against public duty that you could only rely on those few who would prefer their duty to their interest. I do not think we can do without people who used, during the time of Oliver Cromwell, to be called self-seekers.5 It would not do to put them against us. There are always enemies enough to good. Let us suppose that you really would get better measures from the Tories than you could by displacing them for Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party. I am far from thinking it is so; but supposing it is, how do you get them? It will be by compulsion. Their business will be to get into Parliament people who will not compel them. Your business is to get in people who will. If we want to get in a Tory Government for the purpose of extracting Radical measures from them, as has been sometimes done before now—(cheers}—the way to do it is to put in as many men as you can who won't let them stay there unless they do pass these measures. (Cheers.) So that, whether you expect to get good measures from a Liberal Government or a Tory Government, your course must be to send Liberal men to Parliament. The more supporters you send to Mr. Gladstone the better measures he will give. Mr. Disraeli will give better measures the more opponents you send. I do not think that the gentleman started in the Tory interest in this great city is likely to compel Mr. Disraeli to grant Liberal measures. It is possible that he might be willing to follow him. (Laughter.) That is not what we want. That is not what Mr. Disraeli wants. He wants people who will be Tories with him; or, if he turns Radical, will be Radical with him. (Laughter.) If you want him to turn Liberal you must send Liberals there. (Hear, hear.) I do not like to charge anybody with, or to suspect anybody of insincerity. Suppose the Tories, from Mr. Disraeli through the Cabinet down to those who voted with him on Reform, are perfectly sincere, and that they are glad they passed it—I do not think this true of them all—(laughter)—I am not sure it is true of any—(laughter)—but suppose it is—suppose they really rejoiced in the Reform Bill, and thought it would be a good thing. If they thought it would be a good thing—why, it must be because they thought it would bring forth fruits for them. Now what sort of fruits must it produce for them to be pleased at? (Laughter.) I like to believe what people say whenever I can. I think there is no time when we can more believe what a man says of himself than when it is to his 5 Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), a member of parliament from 1628, and Lord Protector 1653-58. For the term, see Edward Symmons (fl. 1640s), Royalist divine, The First Sermon, Entitled "The Ecclesiastical Selfe-seeking" (1632), in Four Sermons (London: Crooke, 1642).

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [3]

339

own disadvantage; and when Mr. Disraeli says he is a Tory I believe him. (Laughter.) If Mr. Disraeli be a Tory and supports Tories, and they think the Reform Bill an excellent measure, what must be the consequence? They must expect the consequence to be Tory measures and Tory administration. If they do think so I do not think you would thank them for it. (Laughter.) If they are sincere they must think that you, who are new electors below ten pounds, are Tories at heart; but, unless you are so, I hope you will show them the contrary. (Hear, hear.) That is one thing they may say; or they may think you are not Tories, but that you are more subject than other electors to intimidation—that you can be forced to vote against your convictions. Well, I hope you will show them you won't do that. I dare say there are some who are good enough to think you are more bribeable than others. I am quite certain you will fling that imputation in their faces, at all events. (Hear, hear.) Did they give you a Reform Bill because they were afraid of Hyde Park meetings, or did they believe it to be a good measure? If they thought so, they must think the new electors would vote for them, and that the new electors want Tory measures and a Government more Tory than it is. The people who think that, think that you are bribeable, or can be forced into voting against your consciences. Europe and America have their eyes on this country at this moment. They want to see whether the masses of this country who have received the franchise are worthy of it or not. They want to see whether the working classes of this country, who have never before had any participation in the franchise, have got opinions of their own, and will insist upon having such men as they believe will exercise their minds upon such legislation as will give them a full share of the social advantages which they think, and to a great degree reasonably, that they have not yet had. (Cheers.) I do not think that is what the Tories mean. It is a simple question you have to decide. You have to decide whether your interests are better served by the Liberals than by the Tories. If by the Liberals, then vote for the Liberals. If you can get a better Liberal than I am, I will give way to him at once. (Hear, hear.) Only I think it is not fair to ask you to dismiss me for a Tory. I do not think he will serve you better. I have nothing further to say, except that I shall be happy to answer any question and to listen to any gentleman who has any remarks to make or any objections to offer, or suggestions for the future. Such meetings as these are the proper occasions for putting questions to representatives or candidates, and for asking them to explain anything that requires explanation. I shall be happy to listen to any objections, and to answer to the best of my ability. [The Chair announced a question about the candidates' willingness to admit local decisions in parishes and townships to prohibit by a 2/3 majority the sale of intoxicating liquors.] The Honourable Mr. Grosvenor: The only answer I can give is this, that if 999 people out of1,000 were to combine to prevent the other unit from doing the thing which he had a perfect right to do, they should have no assistance from me. (Loud cheers.)

340

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 133

Mr. Mill: My colleague has expressly stated my views. (Cheers.} I will not weaken his words, but will simply give my adhesion. (Cheers.) [Mr. Anderson, a City Missionary, expressed great regret at these answers, and asked, amidst much interruption, whether the Members would vote for the Permissive Bill.6] Mr. Grosvenor said that the gentleman who had put the question had stated that the poor man ought to have the same law as the rich man. He would ask how that was to be, if the rich man could enter his place of refreshment and amusement, if need be, at any time on the Sunday, and yet the poor man was not to have any similar privilege . ( Cheers . ) Mr. Mill thought it might be said further, that one effect of closing these places on Sundays would be to increase houses for "tippling" — (hear, hear) — and intoxication would be much less under control than it was at present.7 An Elector: It is reported that Mr. Mill is opposed to the equalisation of rates. Mr. Mill: I am in favour of the equalisation of poor-rates in one town or city, however large, but not for the nation. [A question was asked about the funds of the Irish Church; Grosvenor indicated no answer was as yet possible. ] Mr. Mill: Without being able to say with precision exactly the way in which the funds should be distributed, I think there are certain facts which must be observed.8 They must be used for Irish purposes. They are Irish. They come from Irish land and Irish produce. They must not be given for the endowment, wholly or partially, of any religious body whatever — (cheers) — nor to any exclusive denominational system of education; but that they shall be applied to the more pressing social needs of Ireland — by preference, perhaps, to unsectarian and undenominational education. In answer to other questions, f As regarded the ballot he (Mill) desired to say that he was as much against it as ever — (hear, hear) — because he considered that what was a trust for the public ought to be exercised in the eye of the public, and if the working classes would only stand by one another as in the case of trades unions, he felt they would be able to prevent their being compelled to vote against their consciences. (Cheers. Y 6

A constantly reintroduced measure, the next version of which was "A Bill to Enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in Certain Districts to Prevent the Common Sale of Intoxicating Liquors within Such Districts," 32 Victoria (22 Feb., 1869), PP, 1868-69, IV, 285-90. 7 For Mill's response to an elector who objected to these answers, see CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1480. 8 The reference is to the Liberal proposals that would eventually be incorporated in "A Bill to Put an End to the Establishment of the Church of Ireland, and to Make Provision f ^DN] DT Mr. Mill stated his reasons for disliking the ballot. He thought a public trust should be exercised in a public manner.

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [4]

341

Respecting the bill for giving legal security to the funds of trades' unions,9 [Grosvenor said while some protection should be given, he could not pledge himself to the details of any present measure.} Mr. Mill could not pretend that he had examined the provisions of the bill drawn up on behalf of trades' unions, but he was perfectly clear about two things—that it ought not to be in the power of any one to rob them, and, as long as people were members, they should be liable for their subscriptions. [Lyulph Stanley moved approval of the two Members, attacking Smith, referring to rumours that had "passed in Mr. Mill's absence," and declaring his own adherence to Mill's position concerning Governor Eyre. Mr. B. White referred favourably to Mill's correspondence with Bouverie. "Some people said that this correspondence would cost Mr. Mill hundreds of votes, and even his seat. (Loud cries of No, no.) He was sure that, so far from this being the case, the constituency would rally round Mr. Mill, and support him the more." The resolution was passed unanimously, and Grosvenor and Mill moved thanks to the Chair, and the meeting concluded. ]

134. The Westminster Election of 1868 [4] 4 NOVEMBER, 1868 Morning Star, 5 November, 1868, p. 2. Headed: "Election Intelligence. Westminster." The report in the Daily Telegraph, though shorter, contains some details not in the Morning Star. The brief account in the Daily News contains no additional matter. In a letter to John Plummer on 5 November, Mill commented that he had said "a good deal at the meeting yesterday" about "the expense of elections and the difficulty of getting working men's candidates into Parliament," but "it was not reported" in the newspapers (LL, CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1479; cf. ibid., p. 1484). Mill and Grosvenor again addressed their constituents in an evening public meeting, chaired by J.F. Pratt, in Caldwell's Assembly Rooms, Dean Street, Soho, where in "the gallery and front seats were a good many ladies." Grosvenor, speaking first, alluded to his record and attacked that of the Government, saying it would be necessary to reform the Reform Bill in the next Parliament. Mentioning that he favoured the ballot, he referred to Mill's dissent on this issue, the only point of discord between them, and said (to applause) that the electors should not turn from Mill on this one point. After dealing with other questions of the day, Grosvenor concluded, and Mill rose, and was "accorded a reception of quite a remarkable character. All present stood up and for some time waved their hats and handkerchiefs, and cheered with much genuine enthusiasm." in Respect of the Temporalities Thereof, and in Respect of the Royal College of Maynooth" (1 Mar., 1869), PP, 1868-69, III, 85-116; enacted as 32 & 33 Victoria, c. 42 (1869). ^t was known that in the next session there would be introduced "A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Trade Combinations and Trade Unions," 32 Victoria (9 Apr., 1869), PP, 1868-69, V, 323-8.

342

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 134

MR. MILL REMARKED THAT it was now three years since the electors of Westminster were last called upon to select their representatives in the House of Commons. He was one of those in whom they reposed their confidence on that occasion, and he came now before them to seek for their verdict as to the manner in which he had discharged that trust; and, if they approved of his conduct, to ask for a renewal of their confidence. (Cheers.} But they had something more important to do than to express their judgment on the merits or demerits of any one individual. They had important public issues to effect. An expression of opinion by a large and important place like the city of Westminster exercised a good deal of influence, and it therefore depended upon them, to a great extent, as to how other districts would vote and decide. They had to decide, to some extent, whether the new Parliament should be under a Liberal or a Tory Administration. (Cries of Liberal, and cheers.) That was to say, whether the important work that remained to be done was to be accomplished by persons whose hearts were in the work— (hear, hear)—or whether it was to be continued to be entrusted to persons who would do it only by compulsion. (Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that the Tories were opposed to all sorts of improvement—indeed, in the present day no political body of men could exist for any length of time that would be entirely opposed to improvement; but he thought he was justified in saying that the Tories were not in general distinguished by having the spirit of improvement exceedingly strong in them. (Laughter.) He therefore thought that they would not be satisfied to entrust the important work that remained to be accomplished in the hands of people who would not perform it unless they were driven to it. (Hear, hear, Hyde Park, and cheers.) He had heard a good deal about intimidation. (Hear, hear.) Carrying on the business of the country by intimidating the Government was a thing he was not fond of. That was the strange system by which legislation on the Reform question had been accomplished. "The adhesion of the Tories to change was only to be got by persuading them that it was more dangerous to refuse than to make improvements. (Hear, hear.) These were not the qualities of the rulers of the country; and he did not think the electors would entrust improvements to those who had to be frightened into making them. (Loud cheers.) He was no more favourable to government by intimidation than to voting by intimidation; but he thought, like Burke, that such acts of pressure were the occasional medicine of the Constitution, and ought not to be its daily bread. (Hear, hear.)01 Such a system was troublesome and expensive, and was, besides, not creditable to the country. (Hear, hear.) On the whole, he thought it was much better to put the work into the hands of those who did not want to be whipped into doing it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Mill then proceeded to touch upon the proceedings in Parliament during the past session, particularly the efforts that were made to reduce election expenses, ^Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in Works, Vol. Ill, p. 95. a a

- +DT

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [4]

343

and to take them out of the public purse of the district in which the election takes place instead of out of the purses of the candidates. It had been said that this would be shabby. He asked would it be shabby to defray the election expenses of such a man as Mr. Odger—(cheers}—who had come forward for Chelsea, and had conducted his candidature with an amount of straightforwardness and honour that might well be emulated by some of his betters; or the election expenses of Mr. Edmond Beales—(great cheering}—who had been mulcted some thousands of pounds on account of openly expressing his views on political affairs?2 (Hear, hear, and cheers.} On the contrary, he thought it would be shabby to ask these gentlemen to defray the cost of their election. (Hear, hear.} bln support of his opinion, Mr. Mill referred to the action of the Tory party on Professor Fawcett's proposal3 to throw the expenses of the returning officers at elections on the public, and Mr. Schreiber's motion to postpone the municipal elections till after the Parliamentary elections, which were made during last session.4b As for bribery at elections, the attempt made to do away with that disgraceful practice he attached little importance to. He believed that before they could successfully put an end to bribery at parliamentary elections they must first of all check effectually bribery at municipal elections. He fully agreed with the evidence given on this point by the solicitor of the late Governor Eyre.5 (Hisses, cries of Hang him, and general commotion.) That evidence was, in effect, that the corruption at municipal elections was the school and nursery of the bribery at parliamentary elections. (Hear, hear, and cheers.} It happened that municipal elections occurred this year immediately before the parliamentary elections, so that the opportunities and inducements for corruption became much enhanced. An endeavour was made to have the municipal elections this year postponed until after the general election; but notwithstanding what had been stated by the Tory authority to whom he had alluded, the postponement would not be granted. What object the Government had in opposing the postponement of the municipal elections he would leave to his hearers to judge. He would not undertake to say that the majority of the Tory party thought it would be serviceable to them to have a little corruption this one time more—(a laugh}—but they at all events opposed the separation of the two elections. (Shame.} Whatever the motives of the Tories were, he thought the carrying out of the Reform Bill and those other great questions in which they were all alike interested, ought not to be left in such hands. (We don't mean it, and Hear, hear.) After repeating some matters in connection with his conduct in 2 Beales had been a Revising Barrister in Middlesex from 1862 to 1866 when, because of his political agitation, he was refused reappointment. 3 See No. 120. 4 See No. 128. 5 Mill apparently confuses Philip Rose, the Conservative agent who gave the evidence referred to (see No. 116), with James Anderson Rose (1819-90), Eyre's solicitor.

*-*+DT

344

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 135

Parliament, which have been already published, Mr. Mill went on to say that he was ready and desirous to answer any questions which they wished to have answered. cHe said that, being anxious to give opportunity for the asking of questions, he would not allude to other subjects, except that of which Captain Grosvenor had spoken. He regretted to find himself conscientiously opposed to many of the Liberal party, though not in principle, upon the ballot question. He abominated intimidation even more than bribery. Of two bad things, he disliked less the inducing people to do wrong by doing good for them than compelling them to do wrong by taking something from them. (Laughter and cheers.) He would not sacrifice permanent principles to temporary advantage; and the ballot would give a temporary advantage, because the cause of democracy was growing too strong to tolerate intimidation much longer—if all men would stand by each other as the members of the trades' unions did—while it was a permanent principle that a public duty should be performed in public. (Cheers.) He stood by his opinions. (Loud cheers.) If he was wrong, he would be beaten in the end; so they could afford to let him have his way. (Laughter and cheers.)0 An Elector wished to know the candidates' opinions on the Permissive Bill.6 Captain Grosvenor: I am against the Permissive Bill. (Cheers.) Mr. Mill: I am against allowing the majority in any place to make laws regulating the tastes and morality of the minority. (Cheers.) [Following the question period after Mill's speech, a resolution of support for the Members was spoken to by Fawcett, who also received enthusiastic applause; he described Mill as "that great statesman, that good man, that illustrious thinker, and that eminent philosopher." The meeting ended with "Cheers for Gladstone and the two sitting members for Westminster and Professor Fawcett," the proceedings being "throughout of a remarkably earnest and enthusiastic character." ]

135. The Westminster Election of 1868 [5] 6 NOVEMBER, 1868 Morning Star, 1 November, 1868, p. 2. Headed: "Election Intelligence. / Westminster." Reported also in summary in the Daily Telegraph; the Daily News has only a one-sentence comment. In a letter to Chadwick of 7 November, Mill says: "I had already addressed one of my meetings on election expenses [see No. 134], and in compliance with your suggestion I 6

SeeNo. 133, n6.

C C

~ DT] MS (A voice: The ballot.) As he had before fully explained, he was on principle opposed to the ballot, and he was not prepared to give up that principle. By that principle he meant to stand. If, however, he was wrong, he was sure to be beaten in the end, so that they need not be afraid to let him have his way in this particular.

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [5]

345

did so again last evening" (CW, Vol. XVI, p. 1481), but, as he goes on to complain, the newspapers were not reporting his remarks in full. He repeats the complaint in a letter to Chadwick on 10 November, saying: "The newspapers have not reported what I said about election expenses and I have no note of it" (ibid., p. 1484). The public meeting of the electors of St. George's Without and Knightsbridge was held in the evening in the Pimlico Rooms, Warwick Street, Mr. West in the Chair. Most of the "leading inhabitants of Pimlico" were on the platform. Grosvenor spoke first; being interrupted by the Chair with the warning that pickpockets were about, he commented that he did not see the connection between pickpockets and the Irish Church. Mill was greeted with enthusiastic cheers.

MR. MILL IMPRESSED ON THE ELECTORS THE FACT THAT they had something more important to decide than the merits of their representatives. As a part of the electoral body of the United Kingdom, they had to decide whether they would be governed by a Conservative Administration or not. a" Conservative" was an extremely pleasant term; and it would be time for a Conservative Government when there was nothing else to be done. (Laughter and cheers. ) When everybody was perfectly happy and comfortable, there would be a state of things worth conserving; but the world was not just yet happy enough for anybody to be conservative in it. (Loud laughter. ) If they wanted it made better they had better trust to earnest Liberals. (Cheers.) It would be unjust to say all Tories were the enemies of improvement; but it was so uncommonly difficult to make them perceive that there was anything to improve, or that anything could be safely improved. (Laughter.) When an improvement was made, and evidently successful, they very often would accept it and be glad of it; but, on the whole, they were not people who could be expected to do much in that way of their own accord. (Hear, hear.)a bThis had been, and was likely to continue to be, the character of the Tory party, because if any man arose amongst them possessed by the spirit of improvement, he was sure to become a Liberal and to throw off the Tory party, as Mr. Gladstone had done; or the Tory party would throw him off, as they did with Sir Robert Peel. (Cheers. ) Therefore b there could be no surprise that the residuum of that party should not be depended upon for making great improvements — (hear, hear) — and there could also be no surprise that the remaining members of that party should require a great deal of educating. (Laughter. ) The Tory party had now got a very able man to lead them who would make us believe that he had educated the party to which he was supposed to be attached. cMr. Disraeli had professed to educate his party, l as the Irishman did his pig when he tied a string to its hind leg, and took it into Limerick0 backwards. The Irishman was asked the 'Disraeli, Speech at the Corn Exchange, Edinburgh (29 Oct., 1867), reported in The Times, 30 Oct., p. 5. fl fl 6

- +DTT

~*DT] MS As the Tory party was constantly losing its best and greatest men, either because it rejected them or they rejected it, C ~CDT] MS Mr. Disraeli's education of the Tory party reminded him (Mr. Mill) of the story of the Irishman who managed to get his pig into the town of Limerick by making it walk

346

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 135

meaning of his getting his pig to walk backwards, and replied in what is known in Ireland as a "pig's whisper:" "Hush! The pig must not suspect where I'm taking it to; walking this way it does not see where I'm taking it to; the pig thinks it's going home; I couldn't get it into Limerick otherwise." (Laughter.) Mr. Disraeli had also taken his party into Limerick. There was, however, this difference between the Irishman and his pig, and Mr. Disraeli and his party. The Irishman made his pig go forward by making it fancy it was going backward, but Mr. Disraeli made his party believe they were going backward when they were really going forward. (Laughter.) But this was a thing that could happen only once. Mr. Disraeli could not make his party go into Limerick a second time in a similar way. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) But he (Mr. Mill) did not believe that Mr. Disraeli was entitled to the credit which that gentleman took to himself of educating his party. Besides, he believed that even Mr. Disraeli himself had undergone a process of education. (Laughter.) dHe believed that Mr. Edmond Beales—(cheers)—had had much more to do with the educating of the Tory party than Mr. Disraeli, and he believed also that the same popular gentleman had a hand in educating Mr. Disraeli himself.d But he (Mr. Mill} did not think that this educating of the leaders of the great parties was a thing that could answer in the long run. (Hear, hear.) eBut driving one's leader was uphill work, and the country had better send men to Parliament to support the most earnest Minister of the day in doing these things. (Cheers.) To get rid of the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act, to secure purity and freedom of election, to remove the real and heavy grievances of Ireland, to secure a fair and equal management of charities for the welfare of the poor, and to accomplish similar needed reforms, Mr. Gladstone and a Liberal Government must be substituted for Mr. Disraeli and a Tory Government. (Loud cheers.)e [Grosvenor answered questions about the Prince of Wales's allowance, primogeniture, working-class representation, and payment of members.] Mr. Mill, replying to questions, thought that £60,000 a year ought to be enough for the Prince of Wales 2 —(Hear, hear, and cheers)—but he thought the question might be left in the hands of Mr. Gladstone. He should vote for the abolition of the law of primogeniture.3 (Cheers.) He thought it was of great 2

Albert Edward (1841-1910), Prince of Wales, later Edward VII. "A Bill for the Better Settling the Real Estates of Intestates," 29 Victoria (13 Mar., 1866), PP, 1866, V, 29-32, had been defeated; a bill with the same title was to be introduced in the next session, 32 Victoria (11 Mar., 1869), PP, 1868-69, V, 29-30. 3

^-^DT Mr. Disraeli had not been so clever or so unprincipled as he represented; for he had been himself educated, with his party, by the ancient goddess Necessity, whose high priest on this occasion had been Mr. Beales. (Cheers.) e e ~ DT] MS Mr. Mill then proceeded to review the various measures—among them the settlement of the Reform, Church and land, and trade-union questions—which he considered necessary to be passed as soon as possible, so as to improve the physical and moral condition of the working classes, and which he believed would never be done by the Tory party unless the people of London and Mr. Beales did as they had done before. (Cheers.) Mr. Gladstone was, he believed, the most likely person to be able to carry those measures. (Loud cheering.)

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [6]

347

importance that working men, who could be considered good representative men, should be in Parliament. (Cheers.} He was not in favour of paying members of Parliament. He would vote against the three-cornered constituencies.4 He did not think, however, that those constituencies would injure the Liberal cause at the forthcoming elections. On the contrary, he believed that the Liberals would gain in the counties, and in Liverpool. It was a question to him whether they would lose anywhere by the introduction of that principle. [A resolution supporting Grosvenor and Mill was moved, seconded, and passed with three dissenting votes, and the meeting concluded. ]

136. The Westminster Election of 1868 [6] 9 NOVEMBER, 1868 Morning Star, 10 November, 1868, p. 3. Headed: "Election Intelligence. / Westminster." A summary report also appeared in the Daily Telegraph. The evening meeting of the electors of St. Margaret's was held in the Regent Music Hall, Regent Street, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Serjeant Tozer in the Chair. The meeting was well attended, with the stage boxes being "filled with ladies." Grosvenor, speaking first, was enthusiastically received. He referred to his difference of opinion with Mill over the ballot, saying that every time he heard Mill express his views he was "horribly afraid" that Mill might be right, but having read W.H. Smith and being reminded of how Tory employers treated their employees, he would stick with his views. Mill, "on rising to address the meeting, was greeted with several rounds of enthusiastic cheering."

HE SAID THAT he was present, like his honourable colleague, for the purpose of giving an account of his political opinions; but it would be more agreeable to himself if, before addressing them, any person present who might have reason to find fault with him or his conduct as the representative of Westminster would get up and give his reasons for doing so. (Cheers.) He thought that persons who entertained unfavourable opinions respecting him should not content themselves with merely calling out something in the body of a large meeting like this, and in such a way that nobody could understand them. (Hear, hear.) If anybody present had anything to say against him he therefore hoped that they would get up at once like men and Englishmen, and tell what was the cause of complaint. °A man, attired in a white smock, at the back of the gallery, here called out, in a stentorian ''The Reform Act of 1867 had given some boroughs three members, the electors voting for only two, with the intention of facilitating representation of minorities. a a ~ DT] MS (Cheers; some noisy demonstrations in the gallery, and a cry, "Some of Smith's lambs.") [paragraph] The Chairman said he was quite sure that the request of Mr. Mill would not be disregarded. (More interruptions and symptoms of opposition in the gallery.)

348

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 136

voice, that he was a working man and a Constitutional man, and came forward to ask the candidates why they had not done as much as the "Constitutional candidate," Mr. Smith? This question elicited loud groans from the meeting and considerable uproar. The Chairman in vain tried to obtain a hearing, but in a few minutes the "Constitution man" disappeared, and silence was restored.0 Mr. Mill went on to say that his friends would render him a great service if they would allow any person who wished to question him to do so. He had heard that plenty of things had already been said against him, and many more things which he dared say he had never heard. (Laughter. ) It was of importance that he should fully know all that his opponents had to say of him. He had been told, for instance, that Mr. Smith's committee had put forth numerous placards with reference to him (Mr. Mill), but he had not seen them — not from any disregard of them, but because he did not reside in Westminster, and therefore they had not met his eye. Whatever those persons desired to say against him, he wished they would say it at a meeting like this. (Hear, hear.) blt was very little use talking with those who agreed with one; he liked to talk to those who differed from him, in order that he might hear them, and say what he could in reply. And so strongly did he feel this, that it would give him the greatest pleasure if the Westminster Conservatives would call a meeting of their own — they might pack it by tickets if they liked, so long as they admitted reporters — and although he went without a single friend, he was ready to go among them, and to6 answer every question they might choose to bring forward — (great cheering) — and he trusted that such an opportunity would be afforded him; but he felt that here, where he had so many friends, no proper opportunity was given his opponents to criticise his conduct, and he was anxious that they should have fair play. (Enthusiastic cheers.) He would be better able to speak if gentlemen would point out to him any particular points upon which they desired information. (Hear, hear.) If there were any gentlemen present who desired to at once put to him any questions respecting his political conduct or his political opinions, he begged they would now at once come forward. c The honourable gentleman resumed his seat, but, as no one attempted to address the meeting, the Chairman, after a pause, requested him to continue his speech. c The honourable gentleman then proceeded to state his opinions on the leading topics of the day, the substance of which have been several times before the public within the past eight or ten days. He particularly dwelt upon the questions of * *DT] MS It was very easy to talk to people who agreed with one, but he wished to speak to those who differed from him. It would therefore give him great pleasure if the Conservatives of Westminster would call a meeting of their friends and invite him to it. He should be most happy to respond to such an invitation, provided the representatives of the press were allowed to be present at such a meeting. (Cheers.) He was ready to go among the Conservatives of Westminster, and C C ~ DT] MS (Mr. Mill then sat down, and remained so for a short time, but there was no response to his invitation.) [noparagraph]

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [6]

349

education and taxation. With regard to the former he reiterated the statement he made on previous occasions, to the effect that there existed enormous funds which were intended originally for the promotion of popular education, and which, if properly applied, were sufficient, in the opinion of those knowing most of the matter, to go very near giving education to every one in the community who needed it. (Cheers.} It was not advisable that the education should be given absolutely gratuitously to all. Those who could afford to pay for it ought to be obliged to pay for it; but education should be provided for all. (Hear, hear. ) This need not at all interfere with individual action or Government assistance. Individual action might be made available to supply the religious education desired by the several denominations, and the secular education could be left until the other general means would be available. And it was not merely elementary education that could be given by means of these funds, but ^education of a higher and less immediately necessary character^. (Hear, hear.} He thought they would admit that they had had quite enough of the present mode of giving public assistance for education. The system seemed to be to give to those who had got some assistance already and were becoming well to do, and to withhold from those who had nothing in the way of assistance, and were therefore in a state of helplessness. (Hear, hear.} But now that persons of position were beginning to take the matter into consideration, he had hopes that some more satisfactory system would soon be established in England. He believed that they were nearer the improved state of things which he desired than they were aware of. It, he believed, only remained for the people to back up Mr. Gladstone. (Cheers. } If they did so, he believed that before many years were over their heads they would see the beginning of a new and much better system of education in this country. (Cheers. } Respecting the questions affecting the inhabitants of London, in his opinion the whole of the metropolis ought to be one union for the purpose of rating, particularly for the purpose of rating for the relief of the poor. This would remedy the injustice to the poor under the present arrangement, which naturally arose from the tendency of the rich to live in parts of the town entirely distinct from those occupied by the poor. With one management for the metropolis in respect to rating, something effectual might be done with regard to the extreme poverty in the East-end. e He should like to see something done for the poor of the East-end of London, similar to what was done for Lancashire during the cotton famine.1 ^In this way useful public works would be executed, and the country would not lose a valuable part of its population by emigration/ (Hear, hear, and cheers.} He also thought that the metropolis should be governed by municipalities such as were 'By 25 & 26 Victoria, c. 110 (1862). d

^DT a much higher education for those scholars who showed great efficiency in particular branches while in the elementary schools e-e

+ DT

/-/+DT

350

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 137

sketched in the bill which he introduced into Parliament last session,2 and which, if returned, he would again bring in next session. He hoped the new Parliament would give his propositions on that head a more favourable consideration than the one just dying out. (Cheers.) After again expressing his desire to be questioned on any point on which there was a difference of opinion, Mr. Mill resumed his seat amid much cheering. The candidates were asked no questions. [It was moved that the meeting approve the Members, and pledge continued support. A working man supported the resolution, talking of the "schoolmaster of the House of Commons," who was at the moment indulging in the "characteristic twaddle" he had uttered at the Mansion House;3" the motion was passed and the meeting concluded. ]

137. Fawcett for Brighton 10 NOVEMBER, 1868 Brighton Guardian, 11 November, 1868, p. 8. Headed: "Great Meeting of Liberals,—Last Night." The Brighton Examiner, a weekly, also covered the meeting at length on 17 November, while The Times gave a shorter report, including only Mill's speech in abbreviated form, on 13 November. James White (1809-83) and Henry Fawcett, the two sitting Liberal members for Brighton, met their constituents in an evening public meeting at the Corn Exchange, Brighton. In opening the meeting the Chair called special attention to Mill's presence. White spoke first, followed by Fawcett, and then Mill was called upon.

HE SAID THAT some advanced Liberals who live in other parts of the kingdom and who either have no contested election of their own or are not completely absorbed in it, so as to prevent them from looking round and watching with the deepest interest the prospects of the general election at this crisis of our history, had been startled from their propriety by hearing that there is an opposition made here to the re-election of his friend, Professor Fawcett. (Hear, hear.) Not by the Tories only. It is nothing new for the Tories to court defeat; they are now courting it in several hundred constituencies throughout the country; and the electors of Brighton might have been safely left to deal with them at this juncture. But what had astonished the advanced Liberals of whom he spoke was that the opposition to Mr. Fawcett's re-election was made by a gentleman of the very same political opinions, speaking in a general way, and who can only recommend himself by the same opinions to the electors who had hitherto preferred, and it was to be hoped would still prefer, 2

See No. 93. The reference is evidently to Disraeli's Speech at the Mansion House (29 July, 1868), reported in The Times, 30 July, p. 7. 3

November 1868

Fawcett for Brighton

351

1

Mr. Fawcett. (Cheers.} If there was any member of the late Parliament who should not have been opposed by any man who calls himself an advanced Liberal it is Mr. Fawcett. (Cheers.} They were accustomed in the House of Commons to consider Mr. Fawcett as about the most rising man on the whole Liberal side of the house. Entering the house under disadvantages which to many men would have been insuperable,2—and which must have been so to any one of less courage, consistency, and energy than Mr. Fawcett possessed,—he had succeeded not only in gaining the ear of the House, whether of his political friends or of his political opponents, but he had established a position in the House such as had rarely been acquired by a young man in so short a space of time after his election. (Loud cheers.} Mr. Fawcett had been found on all occasions ready not only to give his vote and his attendance, but also his speech in support of any cause which needed his help. He had also had the gift of not pressing himself forward when he was not wanted. (Cheers.} Mr. Fawcett had to overcome difficulties of a moral kind, greater than any physical one,—the difficulty of the moral atmosphere of the House of Commons. (Applause.} Many a young man enters that House with all good intention, but, when there, comes under the influence of that atmosphere which, stifling to the moral feeling as an atmosphere is stifling to the physical senses, takes all the fealty out of a man. He comes among a number of persons of Lord Palmerston's school of Liberalism, who have no particular intentions. What little intention they do have is good, but the only thing that affrights them is whether people should do it. Whenever anything is proposed they are always afraid that it will make mischief; or disturb the party; or prevent things from going on smoothly; or make somebody or other vote against them; or, perhaps, make the Liberals go out, or, perhaps, prevent them from coming in. (Laughter.} Mr. Fawcett had been as much exposed to their influence as anybody else. He (Mr. Mill} knew there had been people going round Mr. Fawcett and saying "For God's sake don't do this;" or, "For heaven's sake don't do that. You will offend this man and that, and you won't do any good." There never is any good to be done in the opinion of those men. (Laughter and cheers.} Mr. Fawcett had been assailed in that way, but he just told them in all boldness that he thought it right and therefore must do it. That would not be a safe course to take if a man was wrong-headed or obstinate; but he (Mr. Mill} had watched Mr. Fawcett from his first entrance into Parliament (which exactly coincided with his own); he had watched Mr. Fawcett with the deep interest inspired by a knowledge of him and with the great hope he entertained of him, he had watched Mr. Fawcett with the anxiety he felt for a young man in his position, and he had deliberately formed the opinion that Mr. Fawcett's parliamentary conduct had been as much distinguished by judgment as William Coningham (1815-84), a Liberal who had represented Brighton 1857-64 (and had unsuccessfully stood for Westminster in 1852). 2 He had been blinded in a shooting accident.

352

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 137

by courage. (Loud cheers.) When Mr. Fawcett speaks it is always on something he has studied and which he understands; and when he does, what he has done oftener than any man of his standing in Parliament,—when he has come forward and taken up a question for himself, he has not only done so as well but better than most other people. (Loud cheers.) He touched upon three instances,—the reform of the Universities;3 the cost of elections;4 thirdly, the subject on which Mr. Fawcett has distinguished himself as much as any member of Parliament, and that he had made his own during the greater part of his parliamentary life, the condition, the lamentable, deplorable condition—a condition which cries out to the whole people of England for remedy,—the condition of the agricultural labourer.5 (Cheers.) These were some of the reasons which make all lovers of improvement who have attended to what Mr. Fawcett has done, anxious that he should be re-elected. And it was very natural that those friends of improvement, when they found such a man going to be opposed, should wonder very much and should be desirous of knowing the reason for such opposition. He (Mr. Mill) tried to find out by reading all the accounts he could get of what was said; but he had entirely failed to find any other reason than that a gentleman who lives in this place, and who is very much respected by his fellow-townsmen, and who once represented Brighton (Voices: Never any more), would like to represent it again.6 Well, that is a legitimate object of ambition when a man can show he deserves it; but unfortunately it was only to be gratified in this instance by turning out one of the honourable members who now sit for the Borough. He (Mr. Mill) had not yet mentioned his worthy and honourable friend the senior member for the Borough, for the opposition had not been expressly directed against him, and he was almost tempted, after what we read in Scripture,7 to condole with his friend Mr. White, for nobody speaks any harm of that honourable gentleman. (Cheers and laughter.) He supposed the fact was Mr. White was thought to be so deeply rooted in the affections of the people of Brighton that it is no use attempting to dislodge him. (Cheers.) But Mr. Fawcett, being a more recent acquaintance, not residing amongst us,—they say that is very invidious,—they think they have a chance of 3

See, e.g., PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1431-2 (10 Apr., 1867); Vol. 187, cols. 1630-2 (5 June, 1867); Vol. 188, cols. 55-8(18 June, 1867); and Vol. 193, cols. 1054-8 (10 July, 1868). 4 SeeNo. 120. 5 See, e.g., PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1011-14 (2 Apr., 1867); Vol. 187, cols. 559-61 (14 May, 1867); and Fawcett, "What Can Be Done for the Agricultural Labourers?" Macmillan's Magazine, XVIII (Oct. 1868), 515-25. 6 I.e., Coningham. 7 Though the phrasing of the final clause echoes Acts, 28:21, Mill appears to allude to the Beatitudes: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew, 5:11-12; cf. Luke, 6:22-3.)

November 1868

Fawcettfor Brighton

353

decreasing the good opinion formed of Mr. Fawcett; but that good opinion having been formed would be found much harder to shake than some people imagine. (Cheers.) With respect to the gentleman who is endeavouring, at the expense of Mr. Fawcett, to regain the seat he once held for Brighton, he (Mr. Mill) was tempted to ask, "If he wishes you to elect him in preference to Mr. Fawcett, what does he offer you as his inducement to do so?" (Cheers.) During the time that gentleman served Brighton in parliament he conducted himself as a good and faithful Radical; but what did he do during that time for the advancement of the Radical cause, or any other great cause, that could be compared with what Mr. Fawcett, although a young man, had already done during the three years,—for it was no longer,—he had represented this borough in Parliament? (Loud cheers.) If it was said that Lord Palmerston's parliament was not a good place for such exertions, or that the time was not favourable,—granting this candidate such allowance,—what did he say for the future? (Cheers.) What good things did the gentleman opposing Mr. Fawcett say he would do that would not be equally well done by Mr. Fawcett if re-elected? (Cheers.) Indeed, he could not yet find out that Mr. Fawcett had been attacked for anything which was not amongst his merits, and he could prove that if he went through the list of them. He would not say anything of the Tories who would split with that gentleman; though he thought they would not give him a vote because they thought him a surer, a better, a more determined Radical than Mr. Fawcett (cheers); but he might give one piece of advice to Liberal electors. If there is any Liberal candidate that the Tories split their votes with, don't let the Liberals split their votes with him, and if there is any Liberal candidate that the Tories are particularly anxious to get out of the way, that is the man for the Liberals and let them vote for him. Mr. Mill then most elaborately and at great length defended Mr. Fawcett from the charges made against him by his opponents. Mr. Coningham was reported to have blamed Mr. Fawcett because he desired that persons who took a bribe for their votes should be severely punished. Was the condemnation of that sentiment Radicalism, Liberalism, public morality, or even common honesty? (Cheers.) He thought the William Coningham he once knew could never have said so. It must be a misreport. One of Mr. Coningham's supporters said Mr. Fawcett never came here to confer a favour; only to ask one. As to asking for favours that was simple nonsense. What Mr. Fawcett asked was to do the work of this constituency—to devote days of study and nights of expression for the interest of this borough; to expose himself to all sorts of obloquy; and to do so with nothing whatever to gain by it. As to conferring favours—what favours was he to confer? He (Mr. Mill) did not think this constituency wanted favours from their representatives. (Cheers.) The gentleman could hardly mean bribes. Did he mean that it was a shame Mr. Fawcett did not job for them; or did he mean that he should hold out that very slight inducement of subscribing to the local charities? Mr. Fawcett was opposed, too, because he was the friend of co-operation. He (Mr. Mill) did not believe the tradesmen of Brighton would

354

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 137

refuse to vote for Mr. Fawcett on that ground, for co-operation was simply a movement that would greatly benefit the working classes without injuring the tradesmen, or, if at all, in a very slight degree. Besides, even if it did injure the tradesmen a little they must be told what the working men had often been told in relation to the introduction of machinery, that they must suffer a little for a time in order to further the general well-being in the end. If a shopkeeper supplies goods as pure, as unadulterated, as honestly measured, and of as good quality as the co-operative stores, his custom would not be injured; and if he could not do that, did he deserve to keep his custom? (Hear, hear.) Then there was the lucrative custom of the rich which they were always sure to have. In fact, shopkeepers need not suffer much from the most extended and rapid advance of the co-operative principle. (Cheers.) Another thing Mr. Fawcett was opposed for was because he had said that the necessary expenses of elections, which should in fairness be borne by the constituencies, ought to be placed on the constituencies. His clause to carry out that opinion8 was supported by Mr. Gladstone9 and all the best Liberals in the house. That would, if carried out, give the constituencies a greater choice of candidates, and would prevent the representation being monopolised by rich men, who often went into Parliament with the hope of getting back their money with great interest. What did they think of those capable of selling their birthright for such a miserable mess of pottage as these expenses would amount to?10 He hoped the electors of Brighton would fling it back in their faces. (Cheers.) Another one of Mr. Fawcett's alleged demerits,—in his (Mr. Mill's) eyes they were great merits,—was that he had voted for compulsory education.11 He would just ask those who condemned him for that if they thought that any man had a right to exclude his own children from the benefit of the education they could get. That was all compulsory education amounted to,—the making parents recognise the duty incumbent upon them to educate their children. If parents could not exclude their children from the advantages of education, then the state had the right to compel all parents to allow their children to be educated. Even parents would not lose anything in the long run. Their children would work better while at work, and in future years they would be able to take advantage of their position and improve themselves and help their parents all the more. (Cheers.) He had now gone through all the allegations made against Mr. Fawcett which were worthy of being 8

Moved on 18 July, 1868; see No. 120. Gladstone, Speech on Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (18 July, 1868), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1447-8. 10 Cf. Genesis, 25: 29-34. H On 29 March, 1867, Fawcett had asked the Home Secretary, Walpole, whether it was the Government's intention to introduce compulsory education clauses into "A Bill for Regulating the Hours of Labour for Children, Young Persons, and Women Employed in Workshops"; the provisions appeared in Clauses B, C, and D of the Bill as amended by the Select Committee on which Fawcett served (16 July, 1867; PP, 1867, III, 133-47). It was accepted on 14 August without debate, and enacted as 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 146 (1867). 9

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [7]

355

touched upon, and he thought he had shown that the so-called demerits were really conspicuous merits. He supposed that, as Mr. Fawcett was opposed for doing those things, the candidate who opposed him would not do them, but would strive to do exactly the opposite. The candidate would, therefore, be against cooperation; he would be for expensive elections; and he would be against compulsory education. He (Mr. Mill) wanted the electors to realise what they were doing, and, as one means of their doing so, he would suppose that these things were put on a placard. How would Coningham like to see these things,— "Coningham and Jobbery!" "Coningham and Expensive Elections!" "Coningham and Ignorance!"—for that would be the result if nobody wanted compulsory education. "Coningham and No Co-operation!" or perhaps as one of the very greatest and surest effects of co-operation would be to do away with the system of credit and substitute a system of paying ready money, he would put it "Coningham and Tick!" (Great laughter.) If Mr. Coningham would like a placard so drawn up well and good. In any case, he thought he might now commend Mr. Coningham to the consideration of the Tories and leave him in the hands of the Liberal Electors. (Mr. Mill sat down amid vehement and continued cheering.) [The usual motion of support of the candidates was made, questions were put and answered, a special motion of thanks to Mill was passed, and the meeting concluded with thanks to the Chair. ]

138. The Westminster Election of 1868 [7] 11 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 12 November, 1868, p. 2. Headed: "Election Movements. / Westminster. " Also reported in the Morning Star, and the Daily News. The evening meeting of the electors of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields and St. Mary-le-Strand was held in the Polygraphic Hall, King William Street, James Beal in the Chair (the Morning Star says the Rev. D. Bailey chaired). Grosvenor spoke first. Mill was greeted with "immense cheering" (Morning Star) by the large audience. MR. MILL BEGAN, amid some cheering, by saying it was very gratifying to see what is going on in the country just now when the Reform Bill has been given to the people. While Mr. Disraeli held out the Reform Bill in his hand to them, they would persist in saying, "Thank you, Mr. Gladstone!" (Laughter.) All his talking could not alter their opinion. Had the Tories said that the bill which Mr. Gladstone brought in1 did not go far enough, and that no invidious distinctions should be made, what a pleasant time the Commons would have had, what a happy family they would have been! (Laughter.) They would have carried the Amendment Bill, !

In 1866; see No. 15.

356

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 138

would have saved a vast deal of time, a good many broken palings, and perhaps a few broken heads. (Laughter and cheers.) Perhaps Mr. Disraeli might say he had not then educated his party.2 He did not think Mr. Disraeli intended to educate his party at that time, but he could not help thinking that Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby, being religious men, as shown by their wish to preserve the Irish Church, intended to carry out a text of Scripture, but had forgotten what it was. (A laugh.} Christ said, if a man wants you to go with him a mile, go with him twain.3 Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli evidently thought that in order to get their party to go with them a mile one way, they must take them two miles in another. aNo man or body of men who desired to stand well with the people of England could succeed by saying one thing and meaning another, the very suspicion of anything of the kind being enough to destroy such persons in popular estimation (hear, hear}.0 They had in Mr. Gladstone a statesman whose yea is yea and whose nay is nay b. (Cheers.) When he made up his mind he followed it out and therefore the people reposed a confidence in him which they could not do in a man whose policy, feelings, and intentions were not as they should be in order to be popular with what was called the multitude, namely, transparent as the day. (Cheers. )h If they wanted to know the truth about a man they should hear what his enemies said of him. They could not say he was an hypocrite. They said he was precipitate and rash in divulging his opinions. He (Mr. Mill) denied that Mr. Gladstone spoke his mind too freely or without due consideration. It was Mr. Gladstone who, in Lord Palmerston's Government, spoke out, and said that Reform had been promised and must be given.4 "When he (Mr. Mill) read that in a foreign country he predicted that Mr. Gladstone would be the best abused man in England by a certain class.c And had not that been so? (Yes.) Did they believe one word of the aspersions cast on him? (No.) The move the Liberal party was making related to no grievance to England, but to the injury done to Ireland by the maintenance of the Irish Church.5 Englishmen knew that to be a source of irritation to a people with whom they wish to be in close friendship, therefore they wished to get rid of it. They could not make the English Church an Irish Church. If the English Church wanted a branch there, let them endow it from their own funds, without taking anything of the lands or 2

In his speech at Edinburgh on 29 October, 1867; cf. No. 135. Matthew, 5:41. 4 E.g., speech of 11 May, 1864, PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 175, cols. 312-27. 5 Gladstone gave notice of his intended resolutions in his Speech on the Irish Church Establishment (23 Mar., 1868), ibid., Vol. 191, cols. 32-3. 3

a ~"+MS] DN No man who wished to . . . as MS . . . England would . . . as MS . . . another. (Hear, hear.) The very suspicion of that was enough to destroy a man in the popular estimation. (Hear, hear.) *~*DN] DT , and to that he attributed the placing in Mr. Gladstone of a degree of confidence which had been rare indeed in England of late years. ] MS , and who, when he had made up his mind upon a subject, was not to be swerved away from carrying out the intentions he had formed. C C ~ MS Mr. Gladstone could boast of being the best abused man in England, but the time had come when the people of England found how base were those inventions, as the result of the elections would sufficiently show.

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [7]

357

tithes of Ireland. (Hear, hear. ) He related many instances of the severity practised under English rule in Ireland for centuries, remarking that the Irish Church is the one relic left of the system which treated the Irish as a conquered and alien people. rf He entered at some length on the question of the tenure of land in Ireland d, recommending the establishment of a tenant right similar to that which has worked so well under the 30 years' lease system in some parts of India. If this security, not to be turned out, were given to the Irishman, he would know that any improvement he might make would be for the benefit of himself and his family, and that he was safe in his possession so long as he paid his rent. That, however, was a question which was much more likely to be properly dealt with by a Liberal than by a Tory Government, inasmuch as the latter would be entirely bound up in the landlords e; and he hoped that in the approaching election they would send the Liberal party to power, and that that party would approach these questions in a sincere spirit e . If the Irish Church were abolished, and the land question were settled on some such basis as he had sketched, the Irishman would give his hand to the Englishman, and the two nations would be as they had never yet been before — an united people. (Cheers.) f An elector in the body of the room said he had heard it stated that Mr. Mill had been guilty of forging an order for some theatre. (Laughter.) He wanted to give Mr. Mill an opportunity of denying it. Mr. Mill: I am much obliged to the gentleman for giving this new instance of what length the Tories will go to, which justifies what I have said in another place, that they stick at nothing. I need hardly say I never heard one word of this charge before, and if it ever happened to anybody there must be some mistake about the name. Another elector asked if the honourable candidates were in favour of closing the public houses on Sunday. [Grosvenor would not pledge himself to the view that the public houses should be closed altogether. ] Mr. Mill: It would not be just, while the rich are able to get access to wine and other intoxicating drinks on Sundays at their clubs, to pass a law that would make it impossible for the poor to obtain refreshment of a similar character on that day/ 8 Another elector asked whether the candidates were in favour of retaining the law by which the goods of the lodger might be seized for the debts of the landlord.6 6

4 George II, c. 28 ( 1731 ) had extended the landlord's right under common law to seize the personal chattels of a tenant to include the goods of lodgers. (Lodgers were protected later by 34 & 35 Victoria, c. 79 [ 1 87 1 ] . ) In the text the questioner uses "landlord" to signify a tenant who leases from the primary landlord, and himself lets to lodgers. ''-''DN As to the land question, he said a government, whig, tory, or liberal, must soon turn its attention to this great sore e e ~ +MS '-'+MS *~*MS] DT Both candidates agreed that a tenant ought not to be liable for the debts of his landlord. Mr. Mill was of opinion that in some cases bankrupts should be liable to more severe punishment than can be inflicted under the present laws.

358

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 139

Captain Grosvenor was against the law; as was Mr. Mill, who criticised the present law as an abominable one. Another elector asked respecting bankruptcy and imprisonment for debt. Mr. Mill said he did not think there should be any punishment—which imprisonment was—for debtors who were blameless. But there should be punishment for debtors who were not blameless.8 Mr. Mill, in answer to another question, said that no law could be too strong to enforce the education of the community. In reply to questions, Captain Grosvenor declined to say anything as to the disunion of Church and State. Mr. Mill believed all connection between Church and State to be an injury to both; but as the State was more liberal than the Church, and might exercise an influence on clergymen, he thought the question might be allowed to sleep for a time. A middle-aged man in the meeting asked the honourable candidates if they were against the separation of married couples in workhouses. The querist seemed to be so likely to have a direct interest in the matter, that the audience laughed loudly at his question. Captain Grosvenor: I am very much against married couples going into workhouses at all. (Great laughter arose at the pointed application of this reply to the able-bodied man who had introduced the subject.) I do not see what they should marry for if they go to a workhouse; but if unfortunate circumstances reduce them to poverty, they will have become so sick of one another that in the workhouse they will be very glad to be separated. (Hisses. That will not do, Grosvenor!) Mr. Mill: Then see if this will do. I think that for old people and for infirm people the workhouse should be made a place of comfort (hear, hear}, but I think that for young people and for able-bodied people the workhouse should be a place of discomfort. (Cheers.) They ought not to be able to enjoy all the advantages of self-support while receiving support from others. I would separate married people if young and able-bodied; but I would not separate them if old. (Hear, hear.) [The customary vote of confidence in the candidates was moved, seconded, and carried unanimously amid great cheering, and a vote of thanks to the Chair concluded the meeting.}

139. The Westminster Election of 1868 [8] 13 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 14 November, 1868, p. 4. Headed: "The General Election. / Westminster." Also reported fully in the Daily News; Mill's speech appeared in less full form

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [8]

359

on 16 November in The Times and the Morning Star. The Friday evening meeting of Mill and Grosvenor with the electors was held in St. James's Hall. The huge room was overflowing long before the hour of the meeting. Thomas Hughes, who had intended to take the Chair, was detained by the contest in his own constituency, Frome, and Serjeant Parry was elected to his place. Grosvenor spoke first, quoting a version of Mill's remark in No. 138: "the people, while accepting a household bill from Mr. Disraeli, seemed to say mechanically 'Thank you, Mr. Gladstone.' (Cheers and laughter.)" Mill's "reception was enthusiastic, the audience rising en masse . . . waving hats and handkerchiefs for several minutes" (Daily Telegraph), and "cheering at the top of their voices" (Daily News).

SILENCE having been with some difficulty restored, the honourable gentleman said every person he was addressing must be aware of the issue which was going to be decided by the constituencies of the country. What they had to decide was whether the Reform Bill should have any consequences. Every one who voted to return a Tory must mean that the Reform Bill should have no consequences. (Hear, hear.) If the Tories had intended that the people should have the consequences of Reform, they would not have opposed Reform as long as possible, and then only have granted it on compulsion—the compulsion being that they would not have been allowed to remain in office if they had not. The very best thing that could be said in their excuse—no one believing in the sudden conversion of a whole party—was that they thought, as they saw that the poison would be sure to be administered to the patient whether they did it or not, they might as well administer it in a double dose, and so preserve for a short time longer the advantage of being the patient's physician. (Cheers.} As sensible men they would not entrust particular work to people who disliked it, and who would rather it should miscarry than succeed. They were told that the Conservatives were the fittest people to be Reformers, because they would hold the people back when they were going too fast. Though horses did, now and then, need to be held back, it was not usual to choose those to be harnessed which were the best hands at pulling back. (Hear, hear.) When people wished to be held back they applied a drag, and that was what the Tories were good for. (Cheers.) Their place was not in harness, but to be a drag on the wheel, or to hang on behind and pull back the carriage when it was going down hill. (Hear, hear.) If that was their proper function it was now known that it was not a function that they would perform unless they were out of office; for when they were in office they were ready and eager to gallop down hill twice as fast as the others. The Tories were too fond of the old era to be fit to inaugurate the new. A different kind of Parliament and a different kind of Government were wanted from what the country had been used to heretofore. They did not want either a Tory Government or a Palmerstonian Government. It had often been said that Lord Palmerston had demoralised the House of Commons. He did not think Lord Palmerston was responsible for the demoralisation, if it was to be so called, into which the House of Commons had fallen, but he had proved an extremely suitable leader for the House of Commons which had fallen into that state; for, instead of

360

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 139

meeting earnestness with earnestness, Lord Palmerston knew how, with serene good humour, to laugh and joke earnestness away. Men often failed to fulfil the hopes of those who returned them; but sufficient allowance was not made for the atmosphere they entered and the company they found themselves in in the House of Commons. They found themselves amongst hundreds of gentlemen who did not belong to the classes who suffered by the evils which at present afflicted society. (Hear, hear.} They were comfortable, and did not like to have their comfort interfered with; accordingly they very much disliked those who disturbed them, by meddling with great questions; because such questions were difficult, and required a great deal of thinking, which was very troublesome to men who did not always feel confident that they should think to much purpose, and who did not know whom they could trust to think for them. "Comfortable people did not much like those who would not let a sleeping dog lie. (Laughter and cheers.} He had observed throughout life that when a man has made up his mind not to do any good, he soon persuaded himself that there was no good to be done.a If a young man came into Parliament with high hopes, and really wished to do something, he was *told, "For God's sake don't meddle with this or that, the party would not be so safe in office, or would not get into office so soon;" and what was worse, if anyone raised new questions and voted on them, they were sure to offend some of their constituents. In the old Palmerstonian days there had grown up a general feeling in favour of letting things b alone. To that system of letting things alone there was one remarkable exception in Mr. Gladstone—(loud cheers}—who, in his department, over which he alone had control, constantly busied himself to do something good for the nation, which the nation had not the wit to ask him for. (Cheers.} Nobody had forced Mr. Gladstone to give the Post-office Savings' Banks and Life Assurance,l to take off taxes year after year by means of retrenchment, or to repeal the paper duties.2 (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gladstone, however, had done something more, for in 1864 he had broken out of harness, and disturbed the sleep of many in the House of Commons by proclaiming that Reform had been promised, and that Reform must be granted.3 He cagain had raised the question of the Irish Church in 1864 or '65,4 and again practically last year,5c so suddenly, as the Tories said, 'By 24 Victoria, c. 14 (1861) and 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 43 (1864). By 24 Victoria, c. 20(1861). 3 Speechof 11 May, 1864, cols. 312-27. 4 Speech on the Church Establishment (Ireland) (28 Mar., 1865), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 178, cols. 420-34. 5 Speech on the Established Church (Ireland) (7 May, 1867), ibid., Vol. 187, cols. 121-31. 2

"-"+DN fc fc ~ DN] DT assailed in every sort of way to desist from action; so that in the old Palmerstonian state of things there had grown up a general feeling not to meddle with anything which could possibly be left C C ~ DN it was who had conceived the propriety of giving justice to Ireland—

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [8]

361

though Ireland had only been waiting for it for three centuries. (Cheers.) These were the sort of things which made some people call Mr. Gladstone an unsafe Minister; but he called upon the electors to support Mr. Gladstone for the very reason for which he was called unsafe. They wanted a Minister who would do things merely because they were right, and who would not mind risking a few votes for his party, if by that risk he could do right and effect a great object. (Cheers.) He hoped from the elections that were about to commence there would go forth a sound which would proclaim in thunder to the whole world that the Palmerstonian period was at an end. (Cheers.)) Mr. Gladstone, and those who were sent to his support, would have to apply their minds in the next Parliament to great questions. But first they would have to begin with clean hands, by removing from themselves the reproach of oppression. For seven hundred years, up to a very late period, we had been tyrannising over Ireland. We repented it now, even the Tories repented it; but repentance was not worth much without atonement and reparation—(cheers)—and until that atonement and reparation were made the memory of the past would not be extinguished. The Irish required some tangible proof that we felt very differently from our predecessors, and they had a right to expect not only that we should remove that miserable last vestige of our past tyranny which still existed in the shape of a foreign and intrusive Church Establishment, but that for a generation at least Ireland should be the spoilt child of this country. Means also must be found to put an end to the miserable relations now existing in that country between the owners and the cultivators of the land. dThey must put an end to a system of tenure the like of which had not existed in England since the people were serfs. (Cheers.) They would have to consider the same things by and bye with respect to the tenure of land in England. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to conceal the difficulties of the question. elt was not very easy to find landlords in the House of Commons without prejudice; but the land question must be put into the hands of people who would not, because there was a seeming resemblance between the systems of the two countries, refuse to apply to Ireland remedies which might appear too strong for England. e With respect to education, all admitted that it was necessary, except a few who said that they hated this question of education, because there would soon be no labourers or servants. Better say that they would soon have no more slaves, because a man who was not ''"''DN] DT They must be prepared to see very different laws enacted for Ireland than would commend themselves to English landlords. That must be done to enable Englishmen to stand erect before the world, and when matters were set right in Ireland they might think of themselves. The honourable member then referred to national education, which he said, emphatically, was not to be trusted to the "Church party," whom he defined to be those laymen and clergymen who took their stand on being peculiarly for the Church and against the Nonconformists. The great sanitary questions of the health of great cities and towns and the state of the dwellings of the mass of the people required bolder men to deal with them than the Tories e e ~ TT Inasmuch as Irish landlords and Irish tenants differed widely from the same class in England a different method of legislation should be adopted in their regard.

362

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 139

educated must necessarily be a slave. Education was opposed by what was termed the church party as long as they could. When the Bell and Lancaster system was first started,6 that party cried down the movement for teaching the people to read; but when they found that the people would be taught in schools in which, though the Bible was read, the church catechism was not, they founded what was termed the national schools. He admitted that the Tories did now make great sacrifices to promote education, both by giving and begging money for it; but the church party always confounded the interest of the establishment with that of religion, and were not fit to have the control of education. ^He then alluded, with caustic sarcasm, to the conduct of the Duke of Beaufort regarding the support of schools on his Grace's property.lf Clergymen were deplorably ignorant. Kings, great noblemen, great ladies, and clergymen were generally profoundly ignorant of men and the world; and 200 years ago Lord Clarendon said that clergymen understood the least and took the worst views of human affairs of all men who could read and write.8 (Cheers.) He did not mean that there were not numerous admirable exceptions among the clergy, but he felt bound to say that they were not fit to be trusted with education, especially at the present time, when all the bigotry and prejudice had come to the front. (Hear, hear.) They had a vast population and wealth, but with them terrible poverty and enormous taxes. They had a right to expect that government should try to alleviate that poverty. First of all, the health of great cities, towns, and dwellings should be considered. There was no objection on the part of the Tories to make improvements of this kind, but it wanted bolder men to form large plans to benefit the peopled —men who would have bold, well-considered plans, and carry them partially into operation at every opportunity, and into complete operation as soon as possible. (Cheers.) With regard to the two tremendous subjects of crime and pauperism, any Parliament and Government that was fit to exist in this country would place before itself no less grand an object than *their extinction. He did not suppose they would succeed; but Christ had said, 6

Andrew Bell (1753-1832) had used the monitorial system in the infant school in the Madras Male Orphan Asylum; he became Superintendent of the National Society (Church of England) to promote the system. His ideas were closely paralleled by those of Joseph Lancaster (1778-1838), promoted by the dissenting British and Foreign School Society. Proponents of the two systems were at odds in the early years of the nineteenth century over religious issues. 7 Henry Charles Fitzroy Somerset (1824-99), 8th Duke of Beaufort, had just refused to contribute towards the national school in Winterbourn (where he owned land) because the incumbent had worked against his interest in a by-election for West Gloucester in July 1867. (See The Times, 4 Nov., 1868, p. 4.) 8 Edward Hyde, Lord Clarendon (1609-74), The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1759), Vol. I, p. 34.

f-f+TT

*~*DN] DT the extinction of both; not that such a result could be attained, but because if we placed before ourselves as our aim anything less than perfection, we should fall far short in practice of even the degree of improvement that we were perfectly capable of attaining

November 1868

W.E. Gladstone [2]

363

"Be ye perfect as your Father is perfect. "9 Christ did not suppose that we could be perfect, but His words implied that we should endeavour to attain that perfection which humanity was capable of. Education would do something, and improvements of all sorts would effect moreg. 'These great evils should be grappled with by the great minds of the country—minds accustomed to look on public affairs in a comprehensive light. Mr. Gladstone was eminently distinguished for his broad and enlightened views. That gentleman was inspired by a spirit that would not brook the existence of an evil if he found that he had the power to redress it. Let Mr. Gladstone obtain the support of the country, and a Government animated by his sentiments would inaugurate a policy which would redound to the prosperity of the nation.h Mr. Gladstone was the one statesman in his recollection whom he could follow as a leader, and he believed he was the leader for the English people. (Loud cheers.} On the conclusion of the honourable gentleman's speech he was greeted with a second most flattering demonstration of respect and admiration. After a few questions had been put and replied to by the candidates, [Fawcett moved a vote of confidence and support, which was carried unanimously; the "proceedings, which were protracted to an unusually late hour" (The Times), concluded with a vote of thanks to the Chair.}

140. W.E. Gladstone [2] 14 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 16 November, 1868, p. 3. Headed: "The General Election. / Greenwich." Abbreviated versions of the same report appeared in The Times and the Daily News. The Saturday evening meeting of the electors of Deptford was held in the hall of the Mechanics' Institute, High Street, the purpose being to hear Mill's speech. A letter was read from Alderman David Salomons (1797-1873), the sitting Liberal M.P. for the borough, now running with Gladstone, in favour of his candidature. The densely crowded meeting greeted Mill with loud cheers.

AFTER A FEW PREFATORY REMARKS, HE OBSERVED, in reference to Mr. Gladstone not taking an active part in the contest in that borough, that he had heard there were Matthew, 5:48. /I /I

- TT] DT For such work they wanted men accustomed to look at things on a large scale. Where would they find such men amongst statesmen unless they found it in Mr. Gladstone—(cheers)—who must have plans, and who, if supported, would go on from one thing to another?] DN But there must be minds to direct the state sufficiently powerful to grasp these great things, and he knew of no other man capable of the work than Mr. Gladstone, who would never allow a great evil to exist without attempting to alleviate it. (Cheers.) The more supporters they sent to parliament for Mr. Gladstone the more good he would do; and if they made him sufficiently powerful they would never repent it.

364

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 140

some few among the electors who thought that gentleman should have given his assent to become their representative if elected; but although he was not surprised that they should regret the loss of those splendid specimens of oratory which they would have heard from Mr. Gladstone had he been present among them, yet they knew how impossible it was that Mr. Gladstone should have taken any other than a passive part, seeing the immense importance of the contest then taking place in South-West Lancashire, where, had Mr. Gladstone shown any sign of taking part in the contest for Greenwich, his enemies in Lancashire would at once have put the falsehood forward that he despaired of success in that division of their county; for no falsehood was too false to be taken up and spread by his enemies. (Hear, hear.) That was the reason why the electors of Greenwich had not the pleasure of receiving from Mr. Gladstone an expression of his adhesion in their borough contest. (Hear.) But Mr. Gladstone was entitled not only to the warmest support from the constituency of Greenwich, but to the warmest support of all Liberal constituencies. (Loud cheers.) He was entitled to that support on many grounds. (Hear, hear.) It was not necessary that he should dilate on that occasion at length upon all the claims that Mr. Gladstone had to the support of every Liberal constituency—(cheers)—and therefore he would pass a few only in review. (Hear, hear.) The first claim he had was, that he was the only possible leader of the Liberal party. (Loud cheers.) They all knew how difficult it was, and it had often been found most difficult, to induce the Liberal and the Radical party to act together. (Hear, hear.) They had had experience at times of how one class would not trust those who were trusted by other classes; but there was no such state of things when they had seriously determined that their cause should be led by Mr. Gladstone, who was more popular with, and had more the confidence of, the middle and working classes of the country, than any other statesman. (Loud cheers.) They had in Mr. Gladstone a statesman whom they all trusted. (Cheers.) He would be a Minister who knew his business well, and would do it for the good of the country, without being forced to do it. (Cheers.) Mr. Gladstone possessed the friendly connection and co-operation of the old Liberal party; and even those who were lukewarm accepted him as the best man—not that there was no rival to him, but because they knew that, however much Mr. Gladstone wished to do, he would not consent to do anything unjust to any class. (Hear, hear.) No class wished for injustice. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Mill) did not think the Tories wished for anything unjust, knowingly. (Hear, hear.) But they had in Mr. Gladstone a leader in whom they could all confide. (Cheers.) These were not all the points upon which Mr. Gladstone ought to receive their support. Mr. Gladstone was the only statesman within their own time who knew properly the duties of leader of a party; and he was distinguished by that characteristic, that he did not stand still and wait to be summoned by the loud voice of people out of doors, by the thundering demands of the people for some measures of public good. (Hear, hear.) Mr.

November 1868

W.E. Gladstone [2]

365

a

Gladstone sought for", arduously and continuously, things which had not been thought of before. (Hear, hear.) When Chancellor of the Exchequer, so soon as it was seen anything was wanting, he was not for leaving things alone, but he was a singular exception to all others, and there was scarcely a year during which he did not bring some plan forward, from his own knowledge and ability, and important for the benefit of the poor and labouring classes. (Cheers.) It was not from compulsion that Mr. Gladstone introduced the Post Office Savings Bank Bill.1 (Hear.) It was not from compulsion that he introduced, also, the Post Office Life Insurance system2—(hear, hear)—and it was not from compulsion that he succeeded in making reductions in the expenditure of the country, by means of which to pay off some portion of their National Debt. (Cheers.) Neither was it from compulsion that Mr. Gladstone took the duty off paper,3 thus securing the spread of knowledge among the people. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Gladstone was not content with making those improvements in departments only, but he sought improvement in Parliamentary Government. (Cheers.) He (Mr. Mill) would venture to say that there was no other member in Lord Palmerston's Government but Mr. Gladstone who would have dared to have got up and raised the signal for Parliamentary Reform. (Cheers.) No one knew that he was going to do it; and although he would not vote against a measure of Reform as then proposed, he gave warning that Parliamentary Reform had been solemnly promised, and the people expected that promise to be kept.4 (Loud cheers.) That was the beginning of the Reform which they now had. (Hear, hear.) It was Mr. Gladstone who had given them the power they now possessed, and not Mr. Disraeli—(loud cheers)—for the moment Mr. Gladstone was in power he kept to his word, and tried to do it; but the Tories opposed, and, in succeeding to power, had kept office for two years by granting that, and more than they had before denied to the people. (Hear, and cheers.) That which he had named did not make Mr. Gladstone popular with the Palmerston party. (Hear.) It was a sort of thing which made them say, "Gladstone is not a safe man"—(laughter)—that was, a man who would not give himself the trouble of doing anything—(hear, hear)—or a man who would leave questions alone. An unsafe man was a Minister in whom it was high treason to bring forward good measures, or who threw out ideas for good measures. (Cheers.) He hoped that in the future, with Mr. Gladstone, they would not be without such a man. (Hear.) It was Mr. Gladstone who had brought forward the great Irish Church question, when he reminded the House it was a question which would have to be '"A Bill to Grant Additional Facilities for Depositing Small Savings at Interest," 24 Victoria (11 Feb., 1861), PP, 1861, III, 781-8 (enacted as 24 Victoria, c. 14 [1861]). 2 By 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 43 (1864). 3 By 24 Victoria, c. 20(1861). 4 E.g., in his speech of 11 May, 1864. °~aDN]

DT

thought of]

TT

thought for

366

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 140

taken up, for it could not be permitted to wait much longer5—(cheers}—and as soon as the question of Reform was settled he took the question up of the Irish Church,6 and in which they were now called upon to support him. (Loud cheers.) If they did not support him, what would be the consequences? (Hear, hear.) To act wisely would be to give reparation to Ireland for the many wrong laws which had existed for many centuries; for until a recent period they had not treated Ireland like a sister, but more like a slave—(cheers)—and even worse than many slaves; for there were such things as petted slaves, but Ireland had been trampled on. (Hear, hear.) Having referred to the tenure of land in Ireland, where no man was safe from being turned out of possession at the end of six months without compensation, Mr. Mill said it was a difficult question, what exact system of legislation was required to meet it; but Mr. Gladstone was the man who had the mind to solve it, and he was the man to do it. (Hear, hear.) If they did not answer the appeal made to them at the coming elections, and place the right man in the right place, the opportunity for reconciliation with Ireland would be lost. (Hear, hear.) If they did not choose this opportunity to be lost, they would return Mr. Gladstone with a triumphant majority. (Loud cheers.) But there was still a great deal more depending upon what they might do. There was a vast deal to be done, not only in England, but Ireland also. (Hear.) They had to turn over an entire life of half a century, and to undo what former Governments had done. (Hear.) In a country where there existed so much wealth with so much poverty, there were difficulties to be got over by the help of brain, energy, and earnestness— (hear)—and if they wanted either brain, energy, or earnestness, they would not lay their claim for them on those who had opposed them. (Hear, hear.) There were also the questions of national education, and capital, and labour, which required the same brain, energy, and earnestness; and it was for the constituencies to say whom they would have for their leader. (Cries of Gladstone!) It was very much to be hoped that Mr. Gladstone would be returned for South-West Lancashire, and that he would not need to take his seat for Greenwich. (Hear, hear.) But he might require the seat. If he did not need it, they would have done honour to themselves and ''givenb valuable support, showing to other great constituencies that they had given their adhesion in supporting the most illustrious Liberal representative they could select. (Cheers.) If Mr. Gladstone should not succeed, and should require their suffrages—and it was said that Lord Derby had consented to spend £20,000 to prevent his election—(Shame)—but if only £10,000, or £5,000, he (Mr. Mill) believed they would agree with him that the money might be more wisely spent—(hear, hear)—if, as he had said, Mr. Gladstone should require their 5

E.g., in his speeches of 28 Mar., 1865, and 7 May, 1867. In his speech of 23 Mar., 1868.

6

*>-b+TT

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [9]

367

suffrages, it would be a joy of triumph to the constituency that they had provided a harbour of refuge for him, to enable him to take his seat at the assembling of the new Parliament, as the head of the Liberal party. (Cheers.) In conclusion, Mr. Mill called on all the Liberal electors in the borough to be early at the poll on Tuesday morning, and to split their votes by voting for Salomons and Gladstone, resuming his seat amid considerable applause. [A motion was unanimously accepted pledging support to Salomons and Gladstone, and the meeting concluded.]

141. The Westminster Election of 1868 [9] 16 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 17 November, 1868, p. 2. Headed: "The General Election. / Nominations. / Westminster." Reports (in the third person) appeared in the Morning Star, the Daily News, and The Times. The nomination of candidates took place at noon on the hustings in front of Nelson's Column, Trafalgar Square (the location also being referred to as Charing Cross). The "arrangements were an immense improvement over the old regime of dirt and disturbance at Co vent Garden Market, where a candidate and his friends seldom escaped without making acquaintance with the flavour of decaying turnips and cabbagestalks" (Morning Star). Smith arrived first, and then Grosvenor and Mill, with a large group of supporters, who had walked in procession from their committee rooms. After the proclamation and the writ had been read, Erskine Perry, seconded by N.N. Seymour, proposed Grosvenor. Mill was nominated by Malleson, who said in part: "Three years ago you did yourself the honour to solicit Mr. Mill to leave his study, where he had already acquired a world-wide reputation—(cheers)—and, what he values more, a world-wide usefulness—to represent you in the House of Commons, and there with wonderful rapidity he achieved an astonishing success. (Cheers.) As an argumentative debater he is second to none in the House of Commons; and, more than that, the people respect and admire him for his pure courage, his straightforwardness, his simplicity, and his intense devotiofi to the popular cause. (Cheers.) It may be said of him that he has a double title—that he is not only one of the greatest, but one of the best-loved of living Englishmen. (Cheers, and counter cries of Oh.) He has been assailed on the occasion of this election with abuse, insult, and calumny of every kind; but the gentlemen who have thus assailed him do not dare to accept the challenge to be present at one of their public meetings, and there defend himself. (Hear, hear; and a voice, What about Bradlaugh?)" Beal, who seconded the nomination, summed "up Mill's qualifications by saying that the rancorous hatred of that honourable gentleman's opponents was the best guarantee of the value of his services. (Cheers.)" Up to this point the speeches had been quite well heard, but when Smith's supporters began to speak, "there was a surging movement... by the rougher element immediately beneath the hustings" which produced "reaction and uproar, and the clamour thus initiated continued without abatement till the end of the proceedings, and little more than a few stray expressions could be caught here and there from the different speakers" (The Times). George Cubitt, "in the midst of a deafening uproar," proposed W.H. Smith, interjecting the

368

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 141

comment that while the Tories had no complaint to make of Grosvenor, "they did complain that Mr. Mill had indulged in abuse, and had charged the Tories with sticking at nothing. Mr. Mill," he continued, "had been asked to retract, and had declined to do so; and he ... now asked him to do so that day, or when he went to his retirement at Avignon he would regret it." Tavener Miller (who also could barely be heard) seconded Smith's nomination, and then Grosvenor addressed the crowd. Next Mill rose, to be greeted with "a tumult of applause" and "considerable hooting" (Daily News).

GENTLEMEN—This is not the time or the place for many words, and, if it were, you could not possibly hear them; so I will only say this, you and the people of this country generally have got to decide something more important than the particular merit or demerit of candidates that present themselves for your suffrages. You have got to decide whether this country shall have a Tory Government or a Gladstone Government. (Cheers, cries of Gladstone, and interruption.) alf the new electors who have supported Reform care nothing about the rights that have been acquired, and desire things should go on after the Reform Act exactly as they went on before it, they will do quite right to vote for the Tory candidate; but if the old electors are as much attached to Reform as ever—if the new electors desire that their newly-acquired rights should be exercised to the best advantage—and if both new and old electors wish the Reform Bill to bring forth abundant fruits, then they will, I have no doubt, vote for the two Liberal candidates. (Cheers.)" [The noise constantly increased, and Smith, like Mill, could not be heard easily. On the show of hands, the High Bailiff declared the election to have fallen on Mill and Smith, though the Morning Star thought the vote had clearly gone to Mill and Grosvenor; a poll was demanded on behalf of Grosvenor, which was announced to begin at 8 a.m. and continue until4p.m. on the 17th, with the result to be declared at 2 p.m. on the 18th. The meeting ( which had lasted less than an hour) ended after "some confusion about the customary vote of thanks to the returning officer. A message was sent to Mr. Mill on the part of Mr. Smith, offering to second the vote if he would propose it, but no move to that effect being made, Mr. Smith himself proposed the motion, and in the absence of a Liberal seconder this duty was discharged by the Hon. R. Grimston [Smith's agent]" (The Times). "Upon leaving the hustings Mr. Mill with his friends returned to the Liberal committeeroom in Cockspur-street, and presenting himself upon the balcony bowed his acknowledgments to his supporters" (The Times).]

" "MS If the electors regretted the support they had given to the Reform Bill, they might show their feeling properly by returning a Conservative; but if they felt with him, that the destiny of the country depended upon maintaining a policy of progress, and if they did not expect the Legislature to go on after the passing of a new Reform Bill exactly as it had done before, but to pass measures for the moral and social improvement of the community, then he trusted he and his colleague might again represent them. (Loud cheers.)

November 1868

Westminster Election 1868 [10]

369

142. The Westminster Election of 1868 [10] 18 NOVEMBER, 1868 Daily Telegraph, 19 November, 1868, p. 8. Headed: "The General Election. / Declarations. / Westminster." Similar reports (also in the first person) appeared in the Morning Star and the Daily News; The Times had a third-person report. Though the declaration of the poll was scheduled for 2 p.m., the number of voters and the consequent difficulty of making up the lists delayed the High Bailiff until 4 p.m. When he appeared on the hustings, the front was occupied by "a number of roughs of the worst type" who, annoyed at the delay, "held high carnival," with the result that "any decently-clad individual wearing a chimney-pot hat had good reason to remember his imprudence." "The principal speaker in the crowd was a little boy whose age could not have been more than ten or twelve years"—The Times guesses fourteen—"whose platform was the shoulders of a young man. This youthful political orator expatiated very intelligently upon all the prominent questions of the day, gave the Liberal party full credit for all they had done and intend doing, criticised the Tories rather severely, even going as far as to wish to see the distinguished educator of that party well hung; accused the successful Tory candidate for Westminster of all sorts of bribery and corruption, and prophesied that gentleman's speedy rejection from the seat for Westminster." (Morning Star.) Mill and Grosvenor, with their supporters, had arrived before 2 o'clock, to enthusiastic cheers. After waiting an hour, however, Mill, "who was indisposed," rose, whereupon "the little fellow on the man's shoulders called for 'Cheers for Mr. Mill,' a cry which was readily responded to; and, addressing Mr. Mill, said, 'Don't mind, Mr. Mill, we'll pop you in for Greenwich.' (Great cheering.)"

GENTLEMEN—So much unexpected delay having occurred, and as I have a bad cold, I will take the opportunity of saying at once the few words I have to say. To be defeated in a contested election is so common an occurrence that there is no reason why any sensible man should be much moved by it—and least of all is that any reason in my case, who, as you know, did not seek the honour which you conferred on me; but, on the contrary, the acceptance was and has been throughout a sacrifice to me. (Hear, hear.) Whatever regret I feel, therefore, at the result of yesterday's election is solely on public grounds. (Cheers.) I regret the loss of a vote to Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party. (Great cheering.) I regret that Westminster, which was so long at the head of the Liberal interest, should have had the unenviable distinction of being the only metropolitan constituency which has at this election sent a Tory to the House of Commons by the vote of the majority. (Hisses.) And I am sorry for one reason more. I think it was an encouragement to young men ambitious of parliamentary distinction—it was a good lesson to them when they found that a great constituency like this was willing to be represented by a man who always told you plainly when he differed in opinion from you—who told you that he differed on a few important points, though he agreed on more, and that he should maintain his opinion by his vote, and

370

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 142

who never, for the sake of preserving his seat, ever said or did anything which he would not have thought it his duty to if he had not been your representative. (Cheers.) It only remains for me to make my wannest acknowledgments to those who have laboured on my behalf, awhich I do most heartily,a and to the electors who have not only given me their support, but an amount of ^support, favour, and countenance* very far above my deserts. (Cries of No, and cheers.} [As he left the hustings with his friends, Mill was again warmly cheered, and was joined by a large crowd in walking back to the Liberal committee rooms in Cockspur Street. The display of a Tory placard offended some in the crowd, and a rush on the hustings resulted in the reporters being "walked over" (Morning Star), and the police were required to restore order. An hour later, William James Farrer, the High Bailiff, appeared, accompanied by Smith, who was greeted by "a storm of mingled cheers and groans." The poll was announced: Smith, 7,648; Grosvenor, 6,584; Mill, 6,284; and Smith and Grosvenor were declared elected. Smith spoke amidst an uproar, and then Grosvenor, who was heard with much greater ease, expressed his thanks, mixed with regret at the loss of Mill as a colleague. A vote of thanks to the High Bailiff terminated the proceedings more peacefully than had been earlier feared.]

a a

~ +MS - DN] DT kindness and favour

b b

"Nomination of Candidates for Westminster at the Hustings, Charing Cross' Illustrated London News, 21 November, 1868, p. 485 Metropolitan Toronto Library

This page intentionally left blank

COLLECTED WORKS OF JOHN STUART MILL VOLUME XXIX

The Collected Edition of the Works of John Stuart Mill has been planned and is being directed by an editorial committee appointed from the Faculty of Arts and Science of the University of Toronto, and from the University of Toronto Press. The primary aim of the edition is to present fully collated texts of those works which exist in a number of versions, both printed and manuscript, and to provide accurate texts of works previously unpublished or which have become relatively inaccessible.

Editorial Committee JOHN M. ROBSON, General Editor HARALD BOHNE, J.C. CAIRNS, J . B . CONACHER, D.P. DRYER, MARION FILIPIUK, FRANCESS HALPENNY, SAMUEL HOLLANDER, R.F. MCRAE, IAN MONTAGNES, F.E.L. PRIESTLEY, ANN P. ROBSON, F.E. SPARSHOTT

Public and Parliamentary Speeches by JOHN STUART MILL

July 1869 - March 1873 Edited by JOHN M. ROBSON University Professor and Professor of English, Victoria College, University of Toronto

and BRUCE L. KINZER Associate Professor of History University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Introduction by BRUCE L. KINZER Textual Introduction by JOHN M. ROBSON UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS ROUTLEDGE

© University of Toronto Press 1988 Toronto and Buffalo Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-2693-1 London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-03792-1 ISBN 0-415-03793-X (set)

Printed on acid-free paper

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication data Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873. [Works] Collected works of John Stuart Mill Includes bibliographies and indexes. PARTIAL CONTENTS: v. 28-29. Public & parliamentary speeches / edited by John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer. ISBN 0-8020-2693-1 (v. 28-29). 1. - Collected works. 2. - Collected works. I. Robson, John M., 1927II. Title. B1602.A2 1963 192 C65-188-2rev.

This volume has been published with the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Contents

July 1869 to March 1873 143. The Cobden Club (10 July, 1869) 144. Women's Suffrage [1] (18 July 1869) 145. The Education Bill (25 Mar., 1870) 146. Women's Suffrage [2] (26 Mar., 1870) 147. The Elementary Education Bill (4 Apr., 1870) 148. Election to School Boards [ 1 ] (22 Oct., 1870) 149. Election to School Boards [2] (9 Nov., 1870) 150. Women's Suffrage [3] (12 Jan., 1871) 151. The Cumulative Vote (13 Feb., 1871) 152. Discussion of the Contagious Diseases Acts (23 Feb., 1871) 153. The Army Bill (10 Mar., 1871) 154. Land Tenure Reform [1] (15 May, 1871) 155. Land Tenure Reform [2] (18 Mar., 1873)

371 373 381 386 391 396 398 402 409 411 411 416 425

APPENDICES Appendix A.

The Manuscripts

Appendix B.

Questions before Committees of the House of Commons

I) Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government (1866) II) Select Committee on Extradition (1868) Appendix C.

Petitions in the House of Commons (1866-68)

Appendix D.

Manuscript Drafts of Speeches

I) No. 6(1865) II) No. 16(1866) III) No. 144(1869) IV) No. 145(1870)

435 437 542 572

594 599 604 610

vi

Contents Appendix E.

Missing Speeches

614

Appendix F.

War and Peace, by Helen Taylor (1871)

615

Appendix G.

Textual Emendations

618

Appendix H.

Index of Persons and Works Cited

623

INDEX

681

FACSIMILES "Miss Mill Joins the Ladies" Judy, 25 November, 1868, pp. 46-7 "Poor Ireland!" Fun, 28 March, 1868, facing p. 28

vii 432

"Miss Mill joins the ladies" Judy, 25 November, 1868, pp. 46-7

This page intentionally left blank

. . . July 1869 to March 1873... 143. The Cobden Club 10 JULY, 1869 Daily News, 12 July, 1869, p. 2. Headed: "The Cobden Club." Reports (all in the third person) appeared in the Morning Star, the Daily Telegraph, and The Times. The annual dinner of the Cobden Club was held at 6 p.m. on Saturday in the Ship Hotel, Greenwich, with about 150 members and guests taken there by steamer from the House of Commons Stairs. George Douglas Campbell, Duke of Argyll, was in the Chair; Thomas Bayley Potter, Honorary Secretary of the Club, was Vice-Chair. Mill, "who was supposed to be in Paris, unexpectedly entered the room, and was loudly cheered." Argyll, in proposing the health of the Queen, made reference to despatches to India, and mentioned his friend Mill, "who knows so much more of India than I can pretend to do, and who has taken, as we all know, the fair sex under his chivalrous and eloquent protection (laughter)," and went on to mention the death of the Begum of Bhopal, calling her state "one of the best governed of all the native States"—a comment that elicited " 'Hear,' from Mr. Mill." The other toasts to the Royal Family were followed by Argyll's proposing the toast of the evening, "the Prosperity and Welfare of the Cobden Club," to which G.C. Brodrick responded. Mill was then called on to toast "The Honorary Members and Guests," and rose to loud cheers.

WHEN i ENTERED THE ROOM I had no expectation of being selected, as the organ of this society, to propose the health of their distinguished honorary members and guests. Fortunately, it is the less necessary that I should say much on this topic, as your grace has already expressed the sentiments of this club with your accustomed skill and good taste. As to the gentlemen who are the subjects of my toast, it is quite superfluous that I should say much of them; for among those who desire and watch the progress of European opinion, where is it that Mr. Cobden is honoured and that M. Michel Chevalier1 is not honoured? (Cheers.) In him we recognise the Cobden of France; but for him it is very unlikely Mr. Cobden would have succeeded as he did in producing the great results he achieved. M. Michel Chevalier, at times when there were but a few enlightened men among Frenchmen who saw the advantages of free trade, was exerting himself in every way in which a man could exert himself to promote it. He is still a grand pillar of the cause of free exchange in France, and it is not in that only he has rendered service to his country and Europe. To see this 'Michel Chevalier (1806-79), who was present and later spoke, had been instrumental in securing the "Treaty of Commerce between France and Great Britain" (23 Jan., 1860) (in The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Perry [Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications], Vol. 121, pp. 243-58).

372

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 143

one has only to watch his conduct as a member of the Senate, where he has entitled himself to the highest praise which it is possible for a member of a legislative assembly to deserve, for on more than one occasion he has not feared to stand up alone on behalf of great principles. He has often been the single solitary voter in a minority of himself. (Cheers.) The most remarkable occasion of that kind was in the cause so dear to our Cobden—the cause of peace. (Cheers.) This is the more meritorious because M. Michel Chevalier is well known to be a supporter of the present Imperial Government. As to M. Arles-Dufour,2 all who know anything of that distinguished man know that the influence he has long exercised upon commerce and manufactures in the city of Lyons, and thereby throughout France, has been exercised in the cause of free trade, in the cause of general peace and good will between nations, and I may say in every other good cause that has been at stake throughout his life. (Cheers.) I do not think I am exaggerating when I say this. We have here, too, many distinguished Americans. One of them, Mr. George Walker,3 is well known throughout the United States by the spirit and energy and enlightenment with which he has exerted himself, and by the reproach, and attack, and ill-will he has braved in the great cause of free trade, and, on behalf of that universal peace and good-will among nations, which is inseparably bound up with it; and I do say it is not possible that a nation that has, at an incredible expenditure of blood and treasure, put into effect this grand principle of economy by setting free its slaves—it is not possible in a nation in which educated intelligence goes down to the very lowest ranks—in which there is the freest and openest discussion of all great questions which come home to the understandings of every man, and, I may add, every woman throughout the community—(laughter)—it is, I say, impossible that this great nation should go on in the superstition of protection, and that it should not see that the interests of its citizens are sacrificed every day and every hour to the interests, or supposed interests, of a few. (Cheers.) It is impossible that the fallacies which our great Cobden energetically dispelled and drove out of the minds of the prejudiced among our own people should not also be driven out of the minds of the people of the United States. (Cheers.) It is impossible, now that the great question of negro labour is settled, but that the question of free trade will come into the foremost rank, and when it does become the question of the United States the time is not far distant when it will be impossible to sow dissension between them and Great Britain, when it will be impossible there should be any ill-will between the two nations, but when all differences will be cleared up by explanation and argument. (Cheers.) When that time comes we shall all recognise that the grand work of Cobden, and his great coadjutors in France, in Europe generally, and in the United States, is complete. 2 Franc,ois Barthelemy Arles-Dufour (1797-1872), also present, who had been a Saint-Simonian ally and a friend of Cobden's, was another agent in the treaty of 1860. 3 George Walker (1824-88) had written extensively on U.S. and international banking and currency questions.

July 1869

Women's Suffrage

[1]

373

Then, and not till then, will this club consider its work to be executed. "I consider that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the distinguished foreigners who have made the late Mr. Cobden's cause their own, and I, therefore, have great pleasure in proposing the toast entrusted to me.a The toast is, "Our honorary members and American guests." (Loud cheers.) [Chevalier spoke next, in French, concluding with a toast to Cobden's memory; he was followed by Arles-Dufour, and George Walker of Massachusetts, and then Potter proposed the Chair's health, and after Argyll responded, the company separated, most returning by the same steamer. ]

144. Women's Suffrage [1] 18 JULY, 1869 Report of a Meeting of the London National Society for Women's Suffrage, Held at the Gallery of the Architectural Society, in Conduit Street, Saturday, July 17th, 1869 (London: [National Society for Women's Suffrage,] 1869), pp. 7-14, 34. Reported on 19 July in the Morning Star, from which the responses are taken, and the Daily Telegraph. Collation indicates that Mill was following closely his untitled holograph manuscript (Mill-Taylor Collection), reproduced in full in Appendix D. The afternoon meeting, largely attended by both men and women, was, on Mill's motion, chaired by Clementia Taylor. In her opening remarks, she indicated that the Society's growth and success in the past two years had been in large measure the result of Mill's "fearless and eloquent advocacy"; she alluded to his amendment to the Reform Bill (see No. 55 above), and said "every woman in Great Britain" owed him "a deep debt of gratitude. (Cheers.)" The Secretary, Caroline Biggs, read a brief report, which was accepted. Mill then rose to loud and continued applause.

THE FIRST THING that presents itself for us men who have joined this Society—a Society instituted by ladies to procure the protection of the franchise for women—is to congratulate them on the success of this, their first effort in political organisation. The admission of women to the suffrage is now a practical question. What was, not very long ago, a mere protest in behalf of abstract right, has grown into a definite Apoliticala aim, seriously pursued by many thousands of active adherents. No sooner did a few ladies of talent and influence, fostered in those principles of justice, and believing in those elements of progress, which are now renewing the life of every country of the world—no sooner b did a few of these ladies give the signal that the time was come to claim for women ctheirc share in a a

~ +MS,TT [in third person, past tense]

" "Manuscript practical ^Manuscript , I say, c c ~ Manuscript a

374

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 144

those blessings of freedom, which are the passion and the glory of every noble nation, than there rallied round them unexpected thousands of women, eager to find expression for aspirations and wishes which we now learn that multitudes of our countrywomen have long cherished in silence. The thousands who have signed the petitions for women's suffrage, year after year, are evidence that I am not exaggerating when I say this. For my part, I have all my life held the opinion, that women have the same right to the suffrage as men; and it has been my good fortune to know many ladies very much fitter to exercise it than the majority of the men of my acquaintance. (Laughter and cheers.) I may say, too, to the credit of my own perspicacity, that I have long been of opinion that ^most of d the disclaimers of all wish for political or any other equality with men, which, until quite lately, have been almost universal among women, are merely a form of that graceful and amiable way of making a virtue of necessity, which always distinguishes women. Nevertheless, I must acknowledge, I did not expect the amount of sympathy, e nay e of more than sympathy, of ardent and zealous support, which this movement has called forth among women, and men also, of all ^ranks^and all parties. We have had a success quite out of proportion to our apparent means, and which would be unaccountable, were it not for gsome potent* allies that have been working for us. First of these precious auxiliaries is the sense of justice. When not stifled by custom or prejudice, the natural feeling of justice is on our side. We are fighting against privilege on one side, disabilities and disqualifications on the other. We are protesting against arbitrary preferences; against making favourites of some, and shutting the door against others. We are claiming equal chances, equal opportunities, equal means of self-protection for both halves of mankind. The political suffrage, which men are everywhere demanding h as the sole means by which their other rights can be secured to them, we, for the same reason, and in the name of the same principles, demand for women too. We take our stand, therefore, on natural justice; and to appeal to that, is to invoke a mighty power. The other auxiliary which is working for us, with ever increasing force, is the progress of the age; what we may call the modern spirit. All the tendencies which are the boast of the time—all those which are the characteristic features and animating principles of modern improvement, are on our side. There is, first, the growing ascendancy of moral force over physical—of social influences over brute strength—of the idea of right over the law of might. Then there is the philanthropic spirit; that which seeks to raise the weak, the lowly, the oppressed. There is the democratic spirit; the disposition to extend political rights, and to deem any 'class' ''""'-Manuscript e c ~ Manuscript and ^~"%lanuscript opinions *~*Manuscript certain potent] MS,DT some important ^Manuscript for themselves '"'Manuscript portion of the community as

July 1869

Women's Suffrage [I]

375

7

insufficiently ^protected unless it has a voice in choosing the persons by whom the laws are made and administered. There is the free trade spirit; the desire to take off restrictions—to break down barriers—to Cleave k people free to make their own circumstances, instead of chaining them down by law or custom to circumstances made for them. Then there is the force of what, to the shame of past history, I am obliged to call the new conception of human improvement and happiness—that they do not consist in being passively ministered to, but in active selfdevelopment. And, over and above these specific practical forces, actively at work in society, we have with us one of the strongest and best modern characteristics— not pointing, as those do, to a particular line of outward action, but consisting in a general disposition of our own minds: the habit of estimating human beings by their intrinsic worth—by what they are, and by what they do: not by what they are born to, nor by the place in which accident or the law has classed them. Those who are fully penetrated with this spirit cannot help feeling rich and poor, women and men, to be equals before the State, as from the time of the Christian era they have been proclaimed equal in the sight of God. And this feeling is giving us powerful aid in our attempt to convert that Christian ideal into a human reality. 'To show how unequivocally and emphatically the spirit of the age is on our side, we need only think of the different social improvements which are in course of being attempted, or which the age has fully made up its mind to attempt.' There is not one of those improvements which would not help the enfranchisement of women; and there is not one of them which the enfranchisement of women would not help. mNot one of them can be literally"1 realised unless women, with their moral and intellectual capabilities properly developed, are associated in the work. From the moment when society takes upon itself the duties required of it by the present state of civilisation, it cannot do without the intelligent co-operation of women; and the pedantic nonsense now talked about the sphere of women, will appear thoroughly ridiculous when pleaded as an excuse for excluding women from the minor matters of politics, when their assistance cannot be dispensed with in the most arduous. (Cheers.} Look at education, for example. That is almost the one great cry of the day. Statesmen, scholars, public writers, all join in it: great and small, rich and poor, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, the higher, the middle, and the working classes, with one voice declare, that the country cannot get on without a good national education, descending to the very bottom of society, and (give me leave to add) ascending also to the top. The best people have said this for generations; but after the political changes recently made, and with the prospect we have of more, the '^Manuscript cared for *~*Manuscript set '"'Manuscript as P . . . only consider the various social. . . as P] MS,DT Every improvement that characterised the present age would be found tending in the same direction. """"Manuscript There is not one of them which can be even tolerably

376

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 144

necessity has become evident to all. We say, then, to rich and poor, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals,—Are you going to educate a nation without women? Let alone the equal right of women to "their share of" the benefit; I ask—Can it be given to the rest of us without women's direct help? When we set about really teaching the children of all Cranks of the people °—it will not be like the nominal teaching they mostly receive now—we shall need a vastly greater number of schoolmasters than we can afford to pay, if we reject the assistance of half, porp much more than half, the available force. Women are the acknowledged best teachers of young children; and numbers of them are eager, both as professionals and as volunteers, to put their hand to the work. The only hindrance to their being equally capable instructors of more advanced pupils, is that they cannot teach what they have not been allowed to learn. (Hear, hear.) They will have to be taught all the more valuable branches of knowledge, if only that they may teach them to others. In the country where there is the widest diffusion of popular ^education9, the Northern States of America, a large majority of the teachers are already women, and that not exclusively in the elementary schools; and they are found to be particularly efficient teachers of male pupils. Is it likely, then, that when women find themselves, side by side with the men of the present, teaching and training the men of the future, they will believe in any right of their pupils to political rsupremacyr over them? (Hear, hear.} Will they feel themselves less worthy of a vote, think you, or less entitled to it, than the men who have been taught by them how to use their 5voteJ? And I should like to see the face of the man, so taught, who would stand up and refuse it to them. (Cheers.} Let us turn next to the management of the poor: and by the poor I mean those in receipt of public relief—the pauper population. That formidable difficulty is weighing upon the spirits of all our thinkers, and of all conscientious public administrators; and the more they think, the more they seem to be overwhelmed with its arduousness. I venture to predict that this great national, and more than national, this human concern, will never be successfully treated until women take their share, perhaps the principal share, in the management of it. A wide experience has taught to thoughtful men that the right principle of a poor-law, is to give relief, except of a very temporary kind, to adults, nowhere but in public establishments—workhouses, and, for those who need them, hospitals. And this method has been tried: but the workhouses and the workhouse hospitals have been so execrably managed, the pillage has been so profligate, and the unhappy inmates so brutally neglected and ill-used, that the system has broken down, and public feeling shrinks from enforcing it. If this is ever remedied, it will be when pauper """Manuscript °~°Manuscript p p ~ Manuscript ^'Manuscript r r ~ Manuscript ^Manuscript

a share in classes of the community indeed of instruction superiority votes

July 1869

Women's Suffrage [I]

377

establishments are looked after by capable women. As mere visitors, it is to them we in great part owe the discovery of the enormities by which the public have been sickened, and which has escaped the watchfulness of men specially selected as fit to be inspectors of poorhouses. The fittest person to manage a workhouse is the person who best knows how to manage a house. The woman who has learnt to govern her own servants, will know how to do the same with workhouse servants. Few are the male guardians and inspectors sufficiently conversant with details, to be competent to check the dishonesty, to stimulate the zeal, or to overcome the indolence, of all the people concerned in administering to the wants of any large agglomeration of human beings. Every experienced traveller knows that there are few comfortable inns where there is no hostess. And the gigantic peculation of the commissariats of armies, as well as the dreadful sufferings of the wounded soldiers from the insufficiency of the medical and nursing staff, all bear testimony to the fact that men do not possess the heaven-born faculty they arrogate to themselves for doing well on a large scale what they disdain to serve an apprenticeship to doing on a small scale. If home is ra woman's natural sphere' (and I am not at all called upon to "contradict" the assertion) those departments of politics which need the faculties that can only be acquired at home, are va woman's natural spherev too. But there are great spheres and little spheres; and some people want women to be always content with the little spheres. I don't. In the same manner, in all that concerns the details of public expenditure: what superintendence and control would be equal to that of an experienced mother of a family, who knows, or has learnt to find out, what things ought to cost, and whose daily business it has been to discover and check malversation or waste in every department of a large household? Very few men have had much of this sort of practice; multitudes of women have had it. If we are to meet the demand of the age for a government at once cheap and efficient, which shall cost little, but shall give us all we ought to have for the money, the most vigilant and capable agents for making the money go as far as it can will generally be found among women. (Applause.} One important public function, at least, has devolved on women from the commencement. Nursing the sick is a privilege which men have seldom denied to women. (Laughter.) The nursing of the sick in most public establishments is, from the necessity of the case, mainly carried on by women; and it is now understood that they ought to be educated women. No ignorant person can be a good nurse. A nurse requires to know enough of the laws of health and the treatment of disease, to be at least able to observe sanitary rules, and to understand the meaning of symptoms. But much more than this will be required when the prevention and cure of disease become a branch of public administration; and to this things are rapidly '"'Manuscript the natural sphere of women """Manuscript contest """Manuscript the natural sphere of women

378

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 144

tending. There are many difficulties in dealing with the poor—many hindrances, both moral and economical, to our doing for them what most of us would like to do: but one thing the nation "'is, I think, making w up its mind that it will not grudge them, and that is, the ^care* of their health. In this one respect it is felt that our poor-law, instead of doing too much, does not do nearly enough. The medical staff of our unions is wretchedly underpaid, and nothing like so numerous as it ought to be. And how is it to be made efficient—how can the localities afford the expense necessary for providing a sufficient number of persons with the required qualifications, if we persist in shutting the door upon those women who claim from us medical education, to fit them for such duties as these? Until the medical profession is opened to women, there will never be an adequate supply of educated medical practitioners for any but the rich. And independently of regular practitioners, there are numbers of women who, from their domestic occupations, cannot give all their time, but would willingly give part of it, either as volunteers or at a small remuneration, for work which would be too costly if paid for at the value of the time of medical men in good private practice. But when women are entrusted with public functions like these, and educated for them, will they be content to be excluded from the common privileges of citizenship? and how long will it be possible to exclude them? Society is feeling every day more and more, that the services of women are wanted for other uses than "to suckle fools and chronicle small beer."1 (Laughter.) Many are now saying that women should be better educated, in order that they may be able to educate men; and truly if they are to educate men, the education of a well-educated man can hardly be denied to them. (Hear, hear.) But these very moderate reformers fall into the mistake about women that was made about the working classes. People were willing to educate the working men, but expected them, after being educated, to content themselves with the same treatment which they had met with before. They would be quite happy, it was thought, when their improved faculties qualified them to be more useful servants, and would not think of claiming their share of mastership, or a voice in the choosing of masters. It has not so turned out with the working classes, neither will it so turn out with women. Those who are fit to train men for their work will think themselves fit to share in the work; or, at the lowest, in the choice of those who are to direct it. The higher education of women, and their political emancipation, are sure to go forward together. (Applause.} We may safely affirm, then, that our cause has a powerful backing; since it has for its allies the great forces which are at work everywhere, striving to improve the world. Our success would greatly strengthen all these forces: and they, by their 'Shakespeare, Othello, II, i, 160; in The Riverside Shakespeare, p. 1213. '"""'Manuscript appears to have fully made '"Manuscript use

July 1869

Women's Suffrage [1]

379

increasing strength, help to accelerate our success; illustrating the truth, that improvements aid one another. All good causes are allied; whoever helps forward one ^beneficiaF object, proves in the end to have promoted many more. (Hear, hear.) In the assurance that it will be so with us, our business is to go on doing what, as a Society, we have hitherto done—to strive for the suffrage, and for the suffrage only. The suffrage, while it is the road to other progress, commits no one as to what other things progress consists of. Let us but gain the suffrage, and whatever is desirable for women z must z ultimately follow, without its being necessary at present to "decide", or indeed possible to foresee, all that hisb desirable. The mere fact of claiming the suffrage cis giving an impulse, such as never hasc been given before, to all proposals for doing away with d injustice to women. Since the suffrage has been claimed, a bill for allowing married women to be the owners of their own property, which had been laid on the shelf for ten years with other uninteresting trifles, has been reintroduced into Parliament with good prospect of success;2 and the movement for the higher education of women is spreading in all directions, with a considerable diversity of means, insomuch that women have a chance of obtaining a really good education almost as soon as men. We of this Society shall best promote these important movements by taking no part in them as a Society, whatever any of us may think it Brighte to do as individuals; but pressing forward with all our efforts what virtually includes them all, the suffrage. With it, we shall in time obtain what is needed, whatever that may be; but till the suffrage is gained, we have obtained nothing that may not be resumed any day at the caprice of our rulers. In these days, the great practical distinction, the line of ^separation^ between those who can protect themselves and those who are at the mercy of others, is the political franchise. All who have rights to protect now look to that as the only effectual means of protecting them. (Hear, hear.) Even in America it was found that to abolish slavery was not enough; the negroes *could not be* really free until they had the suffrage. Representative assemblies, in the election of which they had no voice, inflicted or /zpermitted/1 treatment which 2

In fact a similar Bill had been introduced in the previous session (see No. 99, where the Bill of 1857 is also referred to); the measure had been brought forward again as "A Bill to Amend the Law with Respect to the Property of Married Women," 32 Victoria (25 Feb., 1869), PP, 1868-69, III, 427-30, but was not enacted. ^^Manuscript great public ^''Manuscript will a a ~ Manuscript define fc fr ~ Manuscript [not in italics] c c ~ Manuscript has given an impulse, such as had never ''Manuscript any e e ~ Manuscript ought ^^Manuscript demarcation s ~*Manuscript were not ''"''Manuscript tolerated

380

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 144

would ' have brought them back to a servitude almost worse than their previous state. In a political age, such as the present is, 7let the laws in other respects be what they may,7 women will never be of equal account with men, will never be felt to be entitled to equal consideration, so long as men have votes and women have not. The *great* extension of the suffrage to others, so long as women are excluded from it, is a positive injury to them, since it is rapidly making them the only excluded class; the only persons whom the law either deems unworthy of a voice in choosing their rulers, or does not sufficiently care for to 'give' them that protection. The suffrage is the turning point of women's cause; mit alone will ensure them an equal hearing and fair play. With it m , they cannot long be denied any just right, or excluded from any fair advantage: without it, their interests and feelings will always be a secondary consideration, and it will be thought of little consequence how much their sphere is circumscribed, or how many modes of using their faculties are denied to them. Let us, then, continue to concentrate our exertions on the suffrage; inviting all who wish for the "better" education of women, all who desire justice to them in respect of property and earnings, all who desire their admission to any profession or career now closed to them, to aid our enterprise, as the surest means of accelerating the particular improvement in which they feel a special interest. (Loud cheers.) °Mr. Mill then moved the 1st Resolution: "That this Society declares its strong conviction that it is in the highest degree unjust and impolitic to make sex the ground of exclusion from the exercise of political rights." [Charles Kingsley seconded the resolution, which was supported by Henry Fawcett and approved. Millicent Fawcett moved a resolution pledging the Society to work by all lawful means to obtain the franchise for women; in seconding, Houghton referred to a passage from Mill "to the effect that laws would never be improved unless there were numerous persons whose moral sentiments were better than the existing laws," and Morley, supporting the motion, mentioned that he had been converted to sexual equality by reading Mill's Dissertations and Discussions while at Oxford. After the resolution passed, a third was successfully moved, congratulating the society on the progress already made. The meeting concluded after a motion thanking the Chair, moved by Stansfeld, who was followed by Mill. ] I beg to second the motion. It is quite unnecessary that I should make any remarks, or add anything to what has been said. I am sure the whole meeting feels 'Manuscript speedily ~ -Manuscript *~*Manuscript wider '"'Manuscript extend to """""Manuscript with that """Manuscript higher """-Manuscript

7 7

March 1870

Education Bill [1]

381

the grace, the dignity, as-well as the business-like spirit in which the proceedings have been conducted by Mrs. Taylor, and all will join most heartily in voting thanks to her. °

145. The Education Bill [1] 25 MARCH, 1870 Speech by John Stuart Mill, Esq., at the National Education League Meeting, at St. James's Hall, London, March 25, 1870 (Birmingham: printed Hudson, 1870). Collation indicates that Mill was following closely his holograph manuscript (Houghton Library, Harvard University, printed in full in Appendix D below), which is headed in his hand: "Speech at the meeting of the Education League at St James's Hall, March 25, 1870." Reported in full on 26 March in The Times, and in the Daily Telegraph. The Daily News has a summary in the third person. The audience's responses are taken from the Daily Telegraph. Writing on 28 February about the issue to Charles Dilke (who was President of the London branch of the National Education League, and was to chair the meeting at which Mill spoke), Mill says that if he were in Parliament he should oppose the Government's measure because of its denominational bias, adding: "Ever since I saw that the League was going to make a stand on this point I have been desirous of helping it by some expression of opinion, but I have not yet made up my mind how I can best do so. I rather dislike writing private letters to be published in the newspapers, of which there has been a great deal in my case already without my consent" (CW, Vol. XVII, p. 1703). The evening public meeting was held to support the objections of the National Education League to the Government's "Bill to Provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales," 33 Victoria (17 Feb., 1870), PP, 1870,1,505-42 (enacted as 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75). The objections were (1) that school boards were not provided for every part of the country, (2) that education was made compulsory in a partial and uncertain manner, and (3) that the bill extended the denominational system. After the Chair's introductory remarks, it was moved and seconded "That this meeting condemns the power given to school boards to found denominational schools at the public expense; and therefore receives with pleasure the assurances of Mr. Gladstone that this portion of the Bill shall be redrawn," and Mill was called upon, "to receive whom the entire audience rose cheering" (Daily News). THE RESOLUTION which has been moved relates to a defect which, as the Bill was originally a drawn a , was its greatest blot: and even after the great concessions— for they are great concessions—which we may now consider to have been made by the Government, enough of evil remains to demand a strong protest. Though there are many other things in the Bill that we wish altered, those other defects are chiefly of the nature of shortcomings: what is done we approve, but we wish that it were done more thoroughly: the difference between what the Bill gives and what we desire is the difference between good and better, but in the present case it is the """Manuscript framed

382

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 145

difference between good and bad. (Applause.) The Bill does not simply halt and hang back in the path of good, it does positive evil; it introduces a new religious inequality.l Even the ^attenuations that are promised* leave untouched a great part of the evil, for they leave the whole of its principle. Teachers are still to be employed and paid by the entire community to teach the religion of a part. True, this is now to be done out of school hours ,2 and I would by no means depreciate the value of this concession. I should be glad to forget as soon as possible what the Bill would have been without it. Though brought in by a Government which has c earnedc such high distinction as the destroyer of religious inequality in Ireland,3 a more effectual plan could scarcely have been devised by the strongest champion of ecclesiastical ascendancy for enabling the clergy of the Church of England to ^educate the children of the greater part of England and Wales in their own religion at the expensed of the public. Hitherto instruction has only been given to those who asked for it, but we are now going (at least we hope so) to teach every child; and the Bill gave up to the local bodies, which in the rural districts means the squire and the parson, all the neglected children—the children of all who care little about religion, of all who are dependent, of all who are under obligations for charitable offices, of all who are too timid to risk displeasing their superiors by sending in a solemn refusal in writing to do what they are wanted to do.4 (Loud cheers.) And because the Nonconformists would not stand this they were told (but I must do the Government the justice to say, not by them) that their motive could not be religious or political principle, but could only be e unworthy e sectarian jealousy. By the promised concessions this blot is in great part—I wish I could even now say entirely—taken out of the Bill. But the principle remains of teaching the religion of a part with funds raised by taxation from the whole; and a measure infected by this bad principle cannot be satisfactory to any but persons of the dominant creed, nor to impartial persons of any creed. (Cheers.) % is true we may be told^ that the Dissenters can teach their own doctrines if they please and in the school-buildings too.5 They can, if, after deducting the 'By Clauses 7 and 14, it allowed denominational instruction by teachers paid out of State funds. 2 A suggestion made on 18 March by William Francis Cowper-Temple (1811-88), M.P. for Hampshire South (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 200, col. 289) that religious instruction be given at the beginning or end of the school day was incorporated into a successful amendment; see Sect. 7 of 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75. Gladstone, in his Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar.), col. 301, indicated that concessions would be made. 3 By 32 & 33 Victoria, c. 42 (1869). 4 By Clause 7, the "conscience clause." Gladstone, speech of 18 March, col. 302. b-fcypj P,DT alterations that are promised] Manuscript promised attenuations c c ~ Manuscript gained d-d^y^ dictate to the larger part of England and Wales their religion at the risk e ~T)T a mean f-fDT It is true, we are told,] Manuscript We may be told, indeed,

March 1870

Education Bill [1] g

383

8

school hours and the extra hours set apart for Church teaching, sufficient time remains; but they must pay the whole expense and their share of the cost of the Church-teaching besides. (Laughter.) We may be told too that in places where the Dissenters are the strongest, it will be they and not the Church that will be enabled to teach their own doctrines at other people's expense.6 As if an injustice in one place were cured by an injustice in another. (Cheers.) But this permission to Abe unjust'2 in their turn, wherever they are strong enough, the Dissenters are so extremely unreasonable as not to value. It is well known that they do not desire their distinctive doctrines to be taught in schools; and, indeed, there are probably few places in which any one denomination is sufficiently numerous to make this 'easily' practicable. The system deliberately chosen by the Dissenters is that of the British schools, where religious teaching is limited to reading the Bible without note or comment. Besides, we j know that the practical strength of the Dissenters is in the large towns, or districts equivalent to towns; where they happen to be in a majority anywhere else, we see by the example of Wales how little it avails them. But in large towns, even where the Dissenters are the strongest, the Church party is sure to be strong enough to reduce them to a compromise, and make the Boards either subsidize existing Church schools, or, if they make use of the power the Bill gives them of founding others,7 to found a Church school by the side of every unsectarian one. So that the Church party will ^probably, in not* a single instance, be in that position of victims, which it is supposed ought to be so great a consolation to the Dissenters for being victims in three-fourths of the Kingdom. Another thing that is said is that what we complain of as a new grievance exists already: by the national grants in aid of denominational schools we are all of us taxed for teaching religions not our own.8 Well, perhaps there are some of us who might have a good deal to say against this too as a permanent institution, and who live in hope of its ultimate absorption into something of which they can more thoroughly approve. But we are not going now to begin this system; it exists. When it was first introduced nothing better could have been obtained; and it still does good, though we may learn—if we do not already know it—from Mr. Mundella's speech, how sadly the result falls short of the claims made for it.9 But we do not desire to destroy what we have got until we have replaced it by 6 Adderley, Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870), PD, Srdser., Vol. 200, cols. 227-36. 7 By Clause 6. 8 William Edward Forster, Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (14 Mar., 1870), ibid., Vol. 199, col. 1946. 9 Anthony John Mundella (1825-97), M.P. for Sheffield, Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870), ibid., Vol. 200, cols. 240-2.

*~*DT hour set apart] Manuscript extra hours ''"''Manuscript tyrannize '~'DT liberty] -Manuscript -'Manuscript all *~*Manuscript not probably, in

384

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 145

something better. The worst feature of the system, the bigotted refusal of 'aid' to secular schools, is to be abandoned; and the Bill provides that if the Boards, instead of founding new schools, elect to subsidize the old, they must subsidize all denominations impartially,10 secular schools, I hope, included. For this the framers of the Bill are entitled to our cordial thanks. But it is puzzling to find such opposite principles acted on in m different parts of the same Bill, and such different measure meted out to the old schools and to the new. It looks like the result of a compromise between two parties in the Government, on the plan of giving something to each: the sort of thing, in short, which makes our legislation the jumble of inconsistencies that it is. (Loud cheers.) Some have the face to tell us that the ratepayer after all is not taxed for the religious instruction, for the rate is so limited by the Bill that he in reality only pays for the secular teaching. Indeed! Then who does pay for the religious teaching? Do the Church party intend to raise the money by voluntary subscription? The Times of last Monday throws out a suggestion of the kind:1! if one could hope that it would be adopted I should not have another word to say; except indeed, that since, after Mr. Gladstone's concessions, the religious is no longer to be mixed up with the secular teaching, it may as well be given by a different person altogether, when the impartiality would be complete. But if the expense is not paid by subscription it must be paid by the Privy Council, that is by the taxpayer. And do not Dissenters pay taxes? Is there a conscience clause "against" the tax gatherer? (Cheers.) One more thing is said which might well amaze any one who is not past being astonished at any of the tricks that are played with words. We are told that in our care for the conscience of the minority, we violate that of the majority who conscientiously disapprove of schools in which religion is not taught. Now, if what their conscience objects to is sending their own children to such schools, there is no compulsion; they are free to found schools of their own. It is necessary to say this, for the principal supporters of the Bill12 in the House of Commons ° did not seem to be aware of it; they seemed never to have heard of such an idea; they charged us with expelling religion from the schools, as if there were no schools to be had but those supported by rates; as if we were proposing to prohibit all schools except secular ones, or to throw some great obstacle in their way; while all we demand is, that those who make use of the religious teaching shall pay for it themselves instead of taxing others to do it. So that the conscientious scruple which we are 10

By Clause 22. "Leading article on the Education Bill, The Times, 21 Mar., 1870, p. 9. 12 In addition to Forster and Adderley, cited above, Alexander Beresford-Hope (1820-87), then M.P. for Cambridge University, Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (15 Mar., 1870), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 199, cols. 2021-6. '"'Manuscript grants "Manuscript two "-"DT.Manuscript] P,TT for °~°DT House of Commons] Manuscript principal speakers in support of the Bill

March 1870

Education Bill [I]

385

accused of violating is a scruple not against going without the religious instruction but against paying for it, and their conscience requires them to get it paid for by other people. (Cheers.) Is not pthisp a singular spectacle of the richest and most powerful part of the nation, who with two thirds of their expenses sure to be paid by the Privy Council ^or^ the School Rate, cannot bear to do what the smallest denomination of Dissenters cheerfully does—pay for their own religious teaching? But is not this precisely because they are the rich and powerful? The poor and the weak never7" dream of throwing their personal pecuniary obligations upon the public. It is a privilege only ^sought5 by those who do not need it, but who think they have a right to it because they have always had the power to exact it. (Cheers.} 'But it seems' some of these people have a conscience so extremely delicate that it is wounded, not "if their own children, but if any other people's children, attend schools in which religion is not taught". The vbarev existence of a secular school within the country, at least with aid from the State, is a burden on their consciences, as the w existence of heretics was on the conscience of the Grand Inquisitor. And we, because we decline to defer to this remarkable conscientious scruple, disregard the rights of conscience! But the rights of conscience do not extend to imposing our own conscience as a rule upon somebody else. I dare say we should be told, if it were anyone's interest to affirm it, that we are no lovers of liberty because we do not permit kings to take the liberty of hanging or guillotining people at their pleasure. But the liberty we stand up for is the equal liberty of all, and not the greatest possible liberty of one, and slavery of all the rest. (Cheers.} There ought to be room in the world for more than one man's liberty; and there ought to be room in the world for more than one *man's* conscience. Let all parties have what religious teaching their conscience approves and they are willing to pay for. But when a man tells me his conscience requires that other people shall have religious teaching whether they like it or not, and shall have it in schools though they would prefer having it elsewhere, and shall not be helped like other people with their secular teaching unless they consent to accept religious teaching along with it, I tell him that he is not asserting his own freedom of conscience but trampling on that of other people. (Cheers.} If this is a right of conscience it was bigotry and prejudice to complain of the persecutions of the Vaudois and of the Protestants. The case is less flagrant but the principle is the same. (Loud cheers.} [After several speeches, the resolution was passed unanimously. Another p p

" Manuscript] P,DT,TT [not in italics] '"'Manuscript and '""'Manuscript It is not the poor and weak who ^Manuscript claimed '"'Manuscript [paragraph] It appears however that """Manuscript as P . . . attend a school. . . as P] DT people's opinions are taught in schools V V ~ DT very idea of the] Manuscript very ""Manuscript very '-'+DT

when their own opinions, but when other

386

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 146

resolution was moved against Clause 66, which gave school boards discretion over compulsory education, and infavour of guaranteed education for every child; it too was approved unanimously, and then it was moved that elected school boards be established in every district; this passed, a petition to Parliament embodying the resolutions was endorsed, and the meeting ended with the customary vote of thanks to the Chair.]

146. Women's Suffrage [2] 26 MARCH, 1870 Report of a Meeting of the London National Society for Women's Suffrage Held at the Hanover Square Rooms, on Saturday, March 26th, 1870 (London: London National Society for Women's Suffrage, 1870), pp. 4-9. Reported on 28 March, 1870, much abbreviated and in the third person, in the Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, and The Times; though the reports differ in length (apart from their coverage of Mill's speech), they are so similar in wording as to suggest a single source. The responses are taken from the newspaper accounts. For Mill's plans for the meeting, see CW, Vol. XVII, pp. 1697-8, 1701. At the well attended Saturday meeting dementia Taylor took the Chair; her remarks were followed by Mill's. On rising, he was greeted with repeated cheers.

SINCE THE FIRST GENERAL MEETING of this Society in July of last year, we have had ample reason to be satisfied with the progress that has been made by our cause. That progress has manifested itself not only by the increased number of our friends, but, still more, by the altered tone of our opponents. During the year which has just elapsed, much has been written in various publications against the equality of the sexes, but it is remarkable how few of the writers have expressed any great disapprobation of that which is the direct object of this Society, the admission of women to the suffrage. Many of them have even said in express terms that to thus much of concession they, perhaps, might not object. A vote at elections is now, with many of them, a small thing, which they can afford to concede; if women wish for it, they may as well have it as not; but what shocks and scandalises them is, that a claim should be made for women to equality of rights in civil life, and especially in marriage. This is of good augury, and I begin to hope that I may live to see the whole discussion transferred to this point. Those of us who claim for women complete equality of rights have always said that this is a totally different question from the suffrage. The suffrage is a thing apart; no woman, by claiming it, is in the smallest degree committed to the larger demand; if women were, by an inherent and inevitable necessity, subject to the authority of men, they would need the protection of the suffrage all the more. Every plea, either of justice or policy, which speaks for granting the suffrage to any man, applies equally to women.

March 1870

Women's Suffrage [2]

387

But there is a side of the question on which I should like to say something: the particular manner in which the addition of women to the electoral body is likely to affect the character of Parliament, and to modify the mode in which public affairs are carried on. I think that the most marked effect, in the immediate future, would be to infuse into the legislature a stronger determination to grapple with the great "physical and moral0 evils of society. (Hear, hear.) Women electors, I think, will be more difficult to persuade than men that those evils must be accepted—cannot be cured, cannot even be much mitigated—and that we may, with an untroubled conscience, avert our eyes from them, with an occasional grumble at what they cost us in rates, taxes, and charities. Women, I think, will find it hard to believe that legislation and administration are powerless to make any impression on these frightful evils, and that the acme of statesmanlike wisdom is to let them alone. I should consequently expect, from the political influence of women, a considerable increase of activity in dealing with the causes of these evils. I know there are many men who regard any increased activity in that direction with alarm, thinking that it means inconsiderate benevolence, injudicious legal regulation, and general increase of meddling. But there is wise as well as unwise meddling; well-directed as well as ill-directed benevolence; and there is a tendency in the present day to confound the two. It is my conviction that, if the State employed all the means it possesses of raising the standard of morality, and even, in some respects, of physical well-being, in the community, it would find that it has much more in its power than it is now the fashion to believe; and that Governments in these days are quite as blameable in neglecting the right means of promoting those objects, as in days yet recent they were in pursuing the wrong. The time has passed away when Governments, speaking generally, were actively tyrannical; their favourite sins in the present time are indolence and indifference. Whatever scruples they have about doing ill, they have, in general, none at all about leaving ill alone, but allow mountains of mischief to be piled up from age to age, without any serious attempt to check the accumulation. (Hear.) There is something in the nature of government by men alone, which encourages this easy self-satisfaction. Men are more mentally indolent than women, and are far too ready to believe that they have done everything, or that there is nothing to be done. Their consciences and feelings need rousing, and the stronger active impulses of women are wanted to do it. If I am now asked whether, in my opinion, those active impulses can be depended on for prompting the most judicious line of conduct—whether women will discriminate well between good and bad modes of combating evils, and will not be apt to mistake the most direct mode for the most efficacious; I freely confess that the political education of women must be greatly improved, before as much as this can be affirmed with any confidence. But this would only be a real objection, if we were going to disfranchise the men, and turn over the whole power to women. All a a

- DN,DT,TT] P practical

388

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 146

we want is, that the two should be obliged to take counsel together. We want the ship of the State to have both sail and ballast, and not, as is too often the case now when the navigation is troublesome, all ballast and no sail. (Laughter.) There is little danger that the over-zeal of women will not be quite sufficiently tempered by the over-caution of men. In these days we do not fail, in matters of government, for want of a curb, but of a spur; and women, even with the present defects of their education, are well qualified for that office. (Laughter.) As their education improves, they will do more; they will not only be a stimulus to others, but will themselves be capable of doing their full share of the work. Women, on the average, have more contriving minds than men; in things they are really interested in, they are readier in finding means for the attainment of an end; especially in undertakings the success of which greatly depends on the details of the execution. Now this is emphatically the case with attempts to correct the great physical and moral evils of society. These are works of detail. Men form great projects, sound in principle perhaps, and rational in their general conception, but which, when applied to practice, break down, from unforeseen failure of efficiency in the execution. Many more of these projects would succeed if women had a share in planning them. These, I think, are the most marked effects on the general course of government and legislation, which would flow from the admission of women to a share in the functions of citizenship. To this we must add, that the wrongs and grievances which specially affect women would no longer be considered too unimportant to be worth any serious attempt to put an end to them. To take one example among many: if women had votes, there would be a much sterner repression of those outrages on women, which fomake the necessity working women are under of going out alone a serious danger to themfo; outrages which have only reached their present height through the inexcusable leniency with which they are treated by the courts of justice. (Hear, hear.) If women had had votes, we should not have had the "Contagious Diseases Acts";1 under which the wives and daughters of the poor are exposed to insufferable indignities on the suspicion of a police-officer; and must be so, if the Acts are to be so enforced as to have any chance of being effectual for their object. If those Acts are repealed—if they are not extended to the whole country—it will be owing to the public spirit and courage of those ladies, some of them of distinguished eminence, who have associated themselves to obtain the repeal of the Acts;2 a courage and public spirit which can only be duly appreciated '27 & 28 Victoria, c. 85 (1864), which was superseded by 29 Victoria, c. 35 (1866), and the Act that amended the latter, 32 & 33 Victoria, c. 96 (1869). 2 The Ladies' National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts was headed by Josephine Butler (1828-1906). Harriet Martineau (1802-76) was a vigorous contributor to the campaign, her articles in the Daily News leading at the end of 1869 to the formal Women's Protest signed by 2000 women published in the Daily News. Among the *~frDN,DT,TT

at present disgrace the country [DN,TT in past tense]

March 1870

Women's Suffrage [2]

389

by those who have noticed the impudent and shameless character of some of the attacks which have been made on them in print by anonymous writers. To those worthier and more honourable opponents, who think these ladies mistaken, and the course they have adopted an unfavourable indication of the use they are likely to make of increased political influence, I would say—Suppose the Acts to be as beneficent as I hold them to be pernicious; suppose that the ladies who disapprove of them are not actuated by any reasonable view of their nature and consequences, but by an excess or a misapplication of the particular moral sentiment which men have inculcated on them as their especial and principal virtue. What then? Is it no evil that the laws of a country should be repugnant to the moral feelings of confessedly the most moral half of the population? If the repugnance is grounded on mistake, ought not time to have been given, and explanation and discussion used, to rectify the mistake; instead of leaving them to find out, years afterwards, that laws had been passed, almost in secret, revolting to their strongest feelings? That women's suffrage would put a check upon such proceedings as this; that it would compel legislators to take into account the moral feelings of those in whom such feelings are the strongest, and to carry those moral feelings with them, instead of contemptuously setting them aside—must be counted among the benefits that would result from the grant of the suffrage. There are men—not a few—liberal and enlightened on general topics, whose own feelings would incline them to be just to women, but who dread the immediate effect of admitting them to the suffrage, because they think it would greatly increase the power of the clergy. I have never denied that if the suffrage were given them to-day or to-morrow, something like this might possibly, for a time, be the result. And, differing as I do in opinion and feeling on many important topics from the great majority of the clergy, I am not a likely person to undervalue this objection. But it is to me obvious that if the clergy have now too great an ascendancy over the minds of many women, especially in the middle class, it is because the other influences by which the human intelligence is acted on, and opinions formed, have not been allowed to reach them. They have had no encouragement to read the books, or take part in the conversations, which would have shown them that any of the opinions they hear from the clergy are disputed, and disputable. Even if there were no direct discouragement, they have not been so brought up as to take interest in such readings or conversations: while they have been trained in the belief that it is women's part to accept the opinions they find prevalent, and that the thoughtful consideration of great subjects, and the formation of well-considered opinions by hearing both sides, is none of their signatories were Florence Nightingale, Mary Carpenter, Priscilla McLaren (sister of John and Jacob Bright), and their sister Margaret Lucas. The last was on the platform at this meeting, as were Ursula Bright (Jacob's wife), and Frances Bailey Martineau (married to Harriet Martineau's nephew, Russell).

390

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 146

business. How then is it possible that they should not fall under the influence of those who address them through the only feelings and principles they have been taught to cultivate? And consider another thing. What is it that makes clergymen in general, even where professional prejudices do not directly interfere, such unsafe advisers in politics and the affairs of life? It is because they are too much in the position of women; they are treated too much as women are: under a show of deference, they are shut out from the free and equal discussion of great practical questions, and are taught to think themselves concerned with only one aspect of any subject—the moral and religious aspect, in the narrow sense in which they use those terms; for, in a larger sense, all questions in which there is a right and a wrong are moral and religious. Is not this very like the condition of women? To those who dread the influence of the clergy on women's minds, I would say this: If the clergy have more of such influence than belongs to their character and to the degree of their cultivation, let us be just, and admit that they have fairly earned it. The clergy are the only persons who, as a class, have taken any pains with women's minds; the only persons who have appealed directly to their own principles and convictions; who have addressed them as if they had themselves a moral responsibility—as if their souls and consciences were their own. The clergy are the only men who have seemed to think it of any consequence what women think or feel, on any subject outside the domestic sphere. Those who show this respect to women, deserve to have influence with them: and will continue to have more than enough, until other men employ the same means of acquiring such influence which they have done. If the fathers, brothers, and husbands of these women took equal pains with their minds—if they invited them to interest themselves in the subjects in which the fathers, brothers, and husbands are interested, as the clergy do in those which interest them; and if they were taught, by the responsibility of a vote, that the formation of an intelligent opinion on public questions is as much their right and duty as it is the right and duty of men—they would soon find themselves more competent and better judges of those subjects than the clergy are; and there would be no danger whatever of their surrendering their own judgment into the hands of their clerical instructors. Whatever is excessive or hurtful in the clerical influence over them would be weakened, exactly in proportion as they took part in the affairs of life; and only that which is salutary would remain. Instead, then, of regarding the clerical influence as a hindrance to giving women votes, I look upon the vote as the most effectual means of emancipating them from the too exclusive influence of the clergy. But if this danger were far greater than it is, it would be an unworthy thing, on account of such an apprehension, to refuse to one half of the species that necessary means of self-protection, so highly prized by the other half. Every portion of mankind has its own special liabilities to error; and he who would refuse the suffrage to others because he is afraid of their making mistakes, would find good reasons for disfranchising everybody but himself. Safety does not lie in excluding some, but in

April 1870

Education Bill [2]

391

admitting all, that contrary errors and excesses may neutralise one another. And of all who ever claimed the suffrage, or for whom it was ever claimed, there are none in whose case there is so little reason for apprehending any evil consequences whatever from their obtaining it—none for whose continued exclusion the excuses are so insignificant, so fanciful, as in the case of women. c He concluded by moving the following resolution: "That this meeting is of opinion that the extension of the franchise to women will tend to promote among them a more cogent sense of their special duties as citizens, and of their general responsibilities as concerned with the advancement of the highest moral interest of the whole community."" [The motion (supported by Harriet Grote) was carried. A resolution (supported by Helen Taylor) expressing satisfaction at the introduction into the House of Commons by Jacob Bright and Charles Dilke of a bill for removing the electoral disqualifications of women3 was also passed. A final resolution, expressing the view that the general extension of the suffrage, while women were excluded, was a positive injury to them, was approved, and then a vote of thanks to the Chair brought to a close the meeting, "which throughout was of a very enthusiastic character" (Daily News).]

147. The Education Bill [2] 4 APRIL, 1870 Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, HI (1869-70), 348-51 (fascicle for 7 April). Reported in a U.S. paper (not identified) from which there is a clipping in the Mill-Taylor Collection. The meeting was held under Edwin Chadwick's Chairmanship to consider further his "On the New Education Bill," Sessional Proceedings, III (10 Mar., 1870), 261-84.

MR. JOHN STUART MILL SAID Mr. Chadwick had done a great service by bringing before this Association the most important part of the whole education question: the quality of the education. Mr. Chadwick had the very great merit on this subject, as he had on many others, of being the first person to bring before the public many great principles of administration resting on the double evidence of theory and experience—experience in a sufficient sum, though it might be a limited sphere of trial. Many persons must have remarked, and perhaps blamed too severely, the little attention paid to the question of quality, in the discussions going on in and out 3 "A Bill to Remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women," 33 Victoria (16 Feb., 1870), PP, 1870, IV, 799 (not enacted).

CC

- +DN,DT,TT

392

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 147

of Parliament on Mr. Forster's Bill.' But it was not surprising that people should look first to asserting the simple and admitted principles which they fully understood; such as the principle of religious equality. Those principles must be secured against infringement, and all anxiety and strife concerning them must be at an end before people would give their minds to questions of detail; even in that meeting they had got back to the question of denominational teaching, which really could not be helped, and would continually recur until the question was settled. Mr. Chadwick, in his most valuable paper, had furnished one more argument, and a most important one, against denominational education; an argument which the League2 had not used, but which he hoped they would use; grounded on the principle so strenuously enforced by Mr. Chadwick, that schools, to be either efficient or economical, must be large.3 A denominational school could not be a large school; at least it could not be so large as a comprehensive school, and the schools of denominations which were locally small must be small schools. Large schools were efficient and economical for several reasons. Suppose there were ten schools, each with fifty scholars and one master, and suppose they could get them together into a single school of 500 scholars. In the first place, the single school probably would not need so many as ten masters. But suppose that it did. In the ten schools every master must be competent to teach all the classes, and to teach everything. But in the single school of 500, only the head master need be able to teach the highest class, and persons of inferior qualifications, more easily and cheaply obtained, would suffice to teach the other classes. The third reason was the strongest of all, and had been admirably illustrated by the course pursued in America, as described by Mr. Zincke, that if they had a very large number—say 500—in a single school, they would be able to form as large classes as any one person could teach, composed of pupils, all of whom were nearly of the same degree of proficiency.4 Instead of every class being composed of some who were above the average, and some who were below, every class would be composed of children who were all about the same standard, and the same teaching would do for all. That would remedy the great defect of schools. Now, it was complained that the masters gave their chief time and attention to the quick and clever, and neglected the great mass. It was not unnatural that when the same teaching did not suit them all, the master should give most attention to those who would do him most credit, and the consequence was that in England and in most other countries 'i.e., "A Bill to Provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales," 33 Victoria (17 Feb., 1870), which had been introduced by William Edward Forster as the Minister responsible for education, and was enacted in August 1870 as 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75. 2 The National Education League, which grew out of the Birmingham Education Society's efforts, beginning in 1868, to secure a national secular education. 3 "On the New Education Bill," pp. 266-8. 4 Foster Barham Zincke (1817-93), a Chaplain to the Queen, had spoken immediately before Mill (Sessional Proceedings, III, 346-7).

April 1870

Education Bill [2]

393

the majority of those who had gone through the nominal course of teaching went out knowing little or nothing. Would it be said of the future schools, as was said of the present by the Bishop of Manchester, that the teaching in one-third was tolerable, the teaching in another third was indifferent, and the teaching in the remaining third worthless?5 And this, not judging by any high standard, but by one so humble as to aspire to no more than teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic before the age of fourteen. The League, therefore, in protesting against denominational schools, were working for one of the most important of the great principles proclaimed by Mr. Chadwick. The League also agreed with Mr. Chadwick on another point; they objected to the local boards, and insisted that they should be larger and of different composition; and here they did not go far enough; they had still much to learn from Mr. Chadwick. But they were thoroughly right as far as they went. The school districts ought to be much larger, if only that it might be possible to have large schools. In rural districts they could not get together within a space over which children could go daily a sufficient number to make very large schools; but they could have them in much larger numbers than if they were cut up by the different denominations. They could also have much larger schools if, in the first place, boys and girls were taught together; and, in the next place, the poor and those who were not poor received instruction together. Why should not the middle class and the poorer class receive that part of their education which was to be the same together, and from the same teachers? Rich children did not require a different reading and writing from poor children, or a different mode of learning it. The mode which was good for one was good for the other. The only difference was that the better-off parents could afford to keep their children longer at school, to learn additional things. And if those additional things were taught in the same place, the more ambitious and aspiring children of the poor would be fired with a desire to go further and learn that which the daughters and sons of the middle class attained to; and thus the result referred to by a former speaker6 of a child rising from the most elementary even to the highest grade of instruction would be frequently attained, especially if the aid were realised which might be given by means of exhibitions. The school board districts, however, would require to be larger than the district of a single school. If the boards were parochial, there would, in the rural districts, be here and there a school of great excellence (as far, at least, as was compatible with its necessarily small size), where there chanced to be an enlightened and patriotic clergyman or an enlightened and patriotic landowner; but, in the greater part of the country, the schools would be little better than nothing. The district of each school board ought to be large enough to give a 5 In "On the New Education Bill," p. 262, Chadwick cites (giving as his source a private letter) this comment by James Fraser (1818-85), who became Bishop of Manchester in 1870, and had formerly served on the Royal Commission on Education in 1858-59, and reported on the schools of Canada and the U.S.A. in 1866 (PP, 1867, XXVI, 293-435). 6 Edwin Pears (1835-1919), Sessional Proceedings, III, 345.

394

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 147

reasonable chance, that in every board there would be at least one person who knew what good education was, and who cared about it. But suppose this done: let the district, however, be ever so wide, they could not trust the education of the poor to local boards. Take the rural districts. They might almost as well do nothing for the education of the poor agricultural labourer as leave it to the farmers to determine what the education should be. And even in the towns, would they leave the regulation of education to vestries? What did they think of the St. Pancras Vestry?7 Would anybody think of leaving anything which had to be done for the good of the poor to such a board as that? And yet they could count up very easily all the towns in Great Britain and Ireland that were larger, more wealthy, and more populous than the parish of St. Pancras. It was a great town in itself, and it contained surely a sufficient number of the best elements to give it a right to the best local government; it had its full share of well-instructed people—people who had access to all the means of instruction, to all the sources of political excitement and discussion, and there was the result. Again, look at the boards of guardians. A Poor Law union is fully as large a district as the school board districts are likely to be. The boards of guardians had full control over a most important part of the education of the country. They had the education of all the pauper children. How had they fulfilled this office? If the boards of guardians had done their duty, we should not at this time have had an education question. If they had done their duty, or if the duty had been taken out of their hands and assumed by the State, as Mr. Chadwick, thirty-five years ago, proposed; if Parliament had not struck out the clauses which Mr. Chadwick and his enlightened colleagues of the first Poor Law Commission inserted in their Bill,8 we should by this time have been at the end instead of at the beginning of the work. Does any one think that if the pauper children had been properly educated, all other children would not have been found to be educated too? Would they have been content to be thrown out of all the skilled employments, and those which required intelligence and education, by the children of the paupers? For thirty-five years have the boards of guardians had this charge upon them: much more than a generation. And after thirty-five years, Mr. Chadwick is still here, continuing to press upon unwilling ears the great duties 7

The Vestry of St. Pancras had become notorious for financial scandals, bad management (especially in the over-crowded workhouse), inadequate sanitation, and turbulent meetings. 8 Given Mill's close relations with Chadwick (who was in the Chair at this meeting) and his sustained interest in the Poor Law reform of 1834, it is odd that he appears to be mistaken here. There were no explicit provisions for education in the Poor Law Report, Chadwick did not draw up the Bill, and the debate on it in Parliament does not indicate that any clauses dealing with education were struck out. A Cabinet committee went over the Bill with the Commissioners, but their revisions seem not to have touched on education. Possibly Mill had in mind not the Poor Law but the Factory legislation of 1833: Chadwick was instrumental in drawing up the Bill (4 William IV [ 1 Aug., 1833], PP, II, 281-96), which contained education clauses modified in the Act (3 & 4 William IV, c. 103 [1833]).

April 1870

Education Bill [2]

395

which, during all that time, have been disregarded. So much for the rural districts. But perhaps the towns, perhaps the municipal bodies would do better. Well, and what have they done? A valuable Act of Parliament had given them the power to establish free libraries.9 How many of them have done it? A few have done so, and a most valuable institution those libraries have proved. But the great majority have not done it—have even rejected it when proposed to them. Yet this is an indispensable part of national education. Education is something more than to read, write, and cast accounts. He would not disparage the benefit, in developing the intelligence, of even the mere fact of learning to write and calculate. But if they wanted the "poor to make real use of what they were taught at school;" if they wanted them not to forget it, and lose the very power of reading, they must have books to read, and good books too, and a wish to read them. There will never be a real national education until there is a public library in every school district, not necessarily free, but open at a subscription not higher than every poor family in average employment could afford to pay. It would not do, then, to trust the management of education to local bodies, however constituted. There must be an authority above all these to take the initiative. Different people had very different ideas of popular government; they thought that it meant that public men should fling down all the great subjects among the people, let every one who liked have his word about them, and trust that out of the chaos there would form itself something called public opinion, which they would have nothing to do but to carry into effect. That was not his idea of popular government, and he did not believe that popular government thus understood and carried on would come to good. His idea of popular government was, a government in which statesmen, and thinking and instructed people generally pressed forward with their best thoughts and plans, and strove with all their might to impress them on the popular mind. What constituted the government a free and popular one was, not that the initiative was left to the general mass, but that statesmen and thinkers were obliged to carry the mind and will of the mass along with them; they could not impose these ideas by compulsion as despots could. Centralisation and decentralisation were words which had been much abused: what was wanted was the union of both: one authority, which should be a centre of information and of the best ideas to be found in the country, and many popular bodies to whom those ideas should be offered for their assent. A Minister of Education was good. It was good that there should be such a Minister, but it was not good that this Minister should be one to change with every Administration. But whether there was a Minister of Education or not, there ought to be a permanent board composed of people selected for their zeal for education and the amount of intelligent study they had given to the subject. If they had such a board, with emissaries of all kinds, inspectors and assistant commissioners going about the country promoting the best ideas and the best 9

13 & 14 Victoria, c. 65(1850).

396

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 148

methods of education, they would have a chance of attaining to something really national in the way of education. [There were further comments, and the meeting concluded.]

148. Election to School Boards [1] 22 OCTOBER, 1870 Beehive, 29 October, 1870, p. 580. Headed: "The Cumulative Vote and the London School Board." Brief summary reports appeared on 24 October in the Pall Mall Gazette, the Daily News, and The Times. Writing to Edwin Chadwick on 29 October, 1870, Mill refers to "the general indifference to considerations of special qualification" for service on school boards, adding that the leaders of "the working classes do not seem to share this indifference: it was much complained of at a meeting of the Representative Reform Association last Saturday in which Odger, Mottershead, and Lloyd Jones took an active part; and the response was general to what I and others said of the bad quality of the instruction" (CW, Vol. XVII, p. 1770). The Saturday meeting of the Representative Reform Association was held in its rooms, 9 Buckingham Street, Strand, with Thomas Hare presiding. Hare opened the proceedings by outlining the conditions of the cumulative vote, which was to be used for the first time in the school board elections. He was followed by Mill.

MR. J.s. MILL SAID THAT it was of very great importance that the ratepayers should exercise their best judgment in the selection they make of persons to constitute the new board of education. They should be particularly careful in putting on the board persons who had made the question of education their study, and who were well qualified in other necessary respects. Of course, those who were denominationalists and undenominationalists would most probably vote for candidates whom they might find to be of their own respective ways of thinking and believing, and this division of feeling could not, perhaps, be avoided. He did not want denominationalists to give up any of their peculiar desires, and he was equally willing to allow undenominationalists to take care of their interests as far as they can fairly do so. All he had to say on this point was that persons who were opposed to each other through religious motives ran into the danger of overlooking the most important part of the question so far as it affected the great body of the people—that is, the bringing within the reach of all classes and all communities alike, not alone the means of education such as we had had it up to the present, but the acquisition of an education of a greatly improved character. Education was really a subject which required a large amount of practical knowledge and experience, and it was of the first importance that there should be on those school boards men who had given their minds for some length of time to the study of the question. At the meetings lately held this had not been sufficiently attended to. (Hear, hear.) A good deal had been said in Parliament from time to time on the question of education; but he

October 1870

Election to School Boards [1]

397

regretted to find that the quantity of education seemed to have been attended to more on those occasions than the quality (hear, hear). See what the Bishop of Manchester had said of the education we had in this country. The right reverend prelate said that of the education provided for the people of England, one-third of it was tolerably good, another one-third was passable, and the remaining one-third was as bad as no education at all. * When such a man as the Bishop of Manchester made in public such an assertion as this of the education now given—and made it with, unfortunately, such good foundation—it behoved all who had an earnest desire to have the people of England properly educated, to see that the new School Board be composed of men who would be willing and able and determined to turn the Education Act of last session2 to the best possible account. In fact the question the electors had to decide was whether they would have a School Board which would improve the quality of the education hitherto given as well as provide all possible facilities for bringing that improved education within the reach of all (hear, hear). That was what had to be done. If any class of persons wished to elect a representative on account of that representative being of their way of religion and political thinking, let them by all means do so, but let them take care that that representative possessed also the all-important qualification of a matured knowledge of the particular question he should have to legislate upon. Provided the representatives were otherwise fitted, he thought it would be a wholesome and a useful thing to have the board composed of men of different areligiousa and political opinions. To accomplish to the full the great end for which the Education Act of last session was drawn up, the electors must bear these facts and probabilities in mind during the coming elections. It was well that an association like that which called the present meeting together should inform the public respecting the cumulative vote.3 He hoped the electors would make themselves thoroughly acquainted with its peculiarities, and take advantage of the power which it gave them to the fullest extent. It was not more schools which were required so much as good schools (hear, hear). b [In the discussion, ] Lloyd Jones said that some districts had been arranging for the election by dividing the candidates among the different sects. He did not complain of the proportions, but he thought this was the wrong way to go to work, for instead of being a battle of the citizens, the election would be a battle of the sects.] Mr. Mill said that it was of importance that no one class should have preponderance in the Board, and it was rather a good thing that there should be several classes upon it. b J

See No. 147, n5, for the background to this reference. 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75 (1870). Provided for ibid., Schedule 2, Sect. 20. 2

a

~TMG] B regions [printer's error?}

fc-fe+TT

398

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 149

[A resolution was accepted unanimously that the Association should as soon as possible after the elections ascertain how much the cumulative vote had been used, and the "amount of electoral power that had been wasted through various unavoidable circumstances." It was then moved that the Chair communicate with Forster to urge the fullest investigation of the working of the elections to the school board; Mill seconded, and another unanimous vote ensued. The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the Chair.]

149. Election to School Boards [2] 9 NOVEMBER, 1870 The Times, 10 November, 1870, p. 4. Headed: "The Education Act" (the article begins with a general account of candidates and meetings). A full report of Mill's speech also appeared in the Daily Telegraph (again in the first person), and brief third-person accounts were published in the Pall Mall Gazette and the Beehive (12 Nov.); the Daily News had an even briefer report. The evening meeting, attended by over 1000 of the ratepayers of Greenwich, Deptford, and the surrounding area, was held in the Literary Institution, Mill presiding, to consider the proper qualifications for members of the London School Board, and to hear the candidates' views. The four candidates supported by the Church of England each wrote a letter declining to attend. Mill, on rising, was loudly cheered.

THIS MEETING, as you know, has been called to consider the qualifications which should be required in candidates for the School Board. Those who have called us together, and at whose request I have consented to take the chair, think it desirable that before we commit ourselves to the support of particular candidates we should confer together concerning the principles that should direct our choice. For it is to be feared that while we are contending very properly each for his own opinion on a single point—the question of religious teaching in rate-appointed schools—we may lose sight of other points quite as important, and perhaps confide the charge of the education of London to persons who care very much for its being sectarian or unsectarian, but who, when they have taken care of that, think that they have done everything. This would be a sad failure. We all, I suppose, have our opinions as to whether education paid for by rates should be denominational or should be in some way or other religious without being denominational, or should be purely secular, leaving religious teaching to the religious bodies. But whatever importance we justly attach to these differences of opinion, it is even more important that our representatives should have other qualifications than the opinion they profess on this point—that they should be persons who really desire and really understand education. (Cheers.} We have got to determine, therefore, each for himself, by what criterion we are to judge who are they who desire education most and

November 1870

Election to School Boards [2]

399

understand it best. And we have not only to consider what kind of persons are fit to be intrusted with the control of education, but also what kind of persons are not fit. There is one proof of unfitness so decisive that it deprives a candidate of any claim to our support. I would refuse my vote to any one, let him be who he may, who is afraid lest the poor should be too much educated, who thinks they are in danger of knowing more than is necessary for them, or more than is suitable to their condition in life. In education there is no such thing as "too much." (Loudcheers.) Every kind of knowledge is useful. Of course we ought to begin with the most useful. But the most useful is that which most opens their minds, and accustoms them to the use of their understandings. There are some who think that, for working people, the only instruction needed is technical instruction—teaching them the use of their hands. But the hands never work to the best effect unless the brain works too. Looking at the benefits of mental cultivation on their humblest side, the workman whose mind is trained as well as his hands is sure to be the most capable at his work. What is more, he is most capable of turning to other work if his accustomed occupation fails him. When another man goes upon the poor-rate he can maintain his independence. Intelligent Americans say that one of the reasons why there is so little pauperism in the United States is that the American workman, being educated, can turn his hand to anything. I would not vote for any one who thinks that nothing should be taught but reading, writing, and arithmetic. Of what use is it to any one to have been taught to read if he never does read afterwards, or never anything that can be of the smallest use to him? Our object ought to be that the children should leave school with their minds so informed that they will wish to read, and be able to understand the best books or general literature and information. This is quite practicable. We need °nota go to America or Germany for the proofs. The Scotch Parochial Schools did as much as this for two centuries and more. During that time the Scotch peasantry not only were taught to read but loved to read and did read; and if they had not many books within their reach they read all the more assiduously the best that they had, and the effect on their intelligence was such that the sons of Scotch labourers were to be found all over Europe in skilled employments. (Hear, hear.) My next point is this: There will be elected doubtless by the different constituencies many persons of strong religious convictions, whose interest in education has its principal ^source* in religious zeal. It would be very wrong to exclude such persons. Were they all rejected, the opinions of the constituencies would not be freely represented. But this I do say, that no one is fit to take part in administering the Act1 who cares only for religious teaching, who looks upon secular instruction as a minor matter, for which a small portion of attention is necessary. We must remember that the object for which the '33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75 (1870). "-"DT] TT only b -T)T] TT,PMG charm

400

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 149

Act was passed was the improvement and extension of elementary education, and though some people may think, as I do not, that a certain amount of religious teaching belongs properly to elementary education, no one can suppose that the main object of the country and the Government in passing this Act was religious teaching as opposed to secular. (Hear, hear.) One word more as to the kind of candidates we should not elect. Those are to be deeply distrusted who show themselves anxious only for more schools and not also for better. The mere multiplication of schools no better than most of those we have would be a very moderate advantage. What is the character given of the present schools by Bishop Fraser, of Manchester, who, having been an inspector of schools, knows what they are, and who also knows by his own observation the schools of the United States?2 He says that of our primary schools one-third may be considered tolerable, one-third middling, and the remaining third positively bad. (Laughter.) And in passing this terrible judgment he is not trying them by a high standard, but by the miserably low standard they profess—reading, writing, and the first four rules of arithmetic. Even these the great majority of our existing schools do not teach, and few, indeed, are there which teach to any purpose anything more. (Hear, hear.) I have said enough, perhaps, about the disqualifications of candidates. Now, what about their qualifications ? Well, we want people who know what ought to be done, and are zealous to do it, and the best evidence of cboth is— c actions. We should ask of all who offer themselves for our suffrages, what have you done for education? And we should be very much guided by their answers. There is no lack of persons in England, and even in London, who have done something considerable for education; some of them have done things really great and memorable. Unhappily, but few of them are candidates, but that, perhaps, is our own fault in not seeking for them. Let us ask all our candidates what they have got to show of this kind. And in estimating their claims let us, again, remember that services rendered in improving the teaching in schools ought to count for more than what is done merely to increase their number. We should also ask them for some proof that they are competent to judge of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. Let no one think that it is an easy thing to know good teaching from bad. It requires practical experience of teaching and no ordinary knowledge of the human mind. The candidates should be asked what amount of study they have given to the art of teaching and to the reasons why one teacher succeeds and another fails. The account they are able to give of themselves in this particular will be a considerable guide to their qualifications for the School Board. There are one or two more things to be considered. It is of great importance that there should be a proportion of working men on the Board. (Loud cheers.) And it is of the utmost importance that there should be a proportion of women. (Cheers.) The working classes are those 2

See No. 147, n5, for the background to this reference.

c-cDT] XT PMG this is

November 1870

Election to School Boards [2]

401

for whose children the schools are intended. They are those for whose wants and exigencies we have to provide. No one knows the circumstances and wants of the working classes so well as intelligent working people, and the participation of such persons will do more than anything else to give the working classes confidence in the School Board. Besides, there is no class which, taken as a class, is so much in earnest about popular education, so solicitous about its quantity and quality, and so free from any side purposes of promoting the interests of any sect or party by means of it. (Hear, hear.) Working men are indispensable if the School Board is to be thoroughly efficient and popular. Women are still more necessary. In the first place, we have girls to educate as well as boys, and a national education for girls directed solely by men would indeed be an absurdity on the face of it. Moreover, women as the principal domestic teachers have more experience, and have acquired more practical ability in the teaching, at least of children. Almost every mother of a family is a practised teacher, and even beyond the family. For one man not a teacher by profession, who has given much of his attention to teaching or to the superintendence of teaching, there are many women who have done so. Were we not to elect any women we should go completely counter to the spirit of the Act. (Cheers.) Parliament has shown what its opinion is by expressly making women eligible to the School Board.3 It will be most incomplete without them, and it is much to be regretted that so few women have yet offered themselves as candidates. (Cheers.) One thing more. We need not think it indispensable that all we elect should be resident in our own district. We are electing superintendents of education not for ourselves alone, but for all London, and our great concern should be to obtain the fittest persons possible, whether they live in one quarter of the metropolis or in another. If our affairs are mismanaged or less well managed than they might be, it will be a poor consolation to reflect that this has been done by people living at Greenwich, when, perhaps, there was some person of ability out of Greenwich who, if sent by us to the School Board, would have turned the scale on questions of the greatest importance. All ''local as well as personal considerations^ should be silent in the presence of the great trust which the metropolis has now to discharge. (Loud cheers.) [The candidates present addressed the meeting, and then a resolution was moved and seconded that no one was worthy to serve on the School Board who would not seek to secure attendance of every child at school, support free education, and insist that the schools should not be made the means of instilling sectarian opinions; and further that the working classes should be represented on the Board. After a long discussion the motion was adopted, and a vote of thanks to the Chair concluded the meeting.} 3

On 16 June, 1870, in answer to a question by P.A. Taylor, Forster said that in the Education Bill "he" included both sexes (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 202, col. 259). d-rfjypj jj persons

402

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 150

150. Women's Suffrage [3] 12 JANUARY, 1871 Speech of the Late John Stuart Mill at the Great Meeting in Favour of Women's Suffrage, Held in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, January 12, 1871 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh National Society for Women's Suffrage, 1873). A full report of the meeting, including the text of Mill's speech, is also found in Women's Suffrage. Great Meeting in Edinburgh in the Music Hall, on 12th January 1871, under the Auspices of the Edinburgh Branch of the National Society for Women's Suffrage (Edinburgh: printed Greig, 1871), pp. 7-12, and 22 (which supplies the text for Mill's response to the vote of thanks); also reported fully on 13 January in The Scotsman, and in abbreviated form in The Times. The public meeting was held in the evening, with a large audience of both sexes. Duncan McLaren was called to the Chair. After the reading of letters of regret and the annual report (in which mention of Mill brought applause), McLaren indicated that the next and leading motion would be moved by Mill, saying "the audience owed a greater debt of gratitude" to Mill than "they were perhaps aware of, because he had come down from London in this inclement weather for the sole purpose of being present on this occasion, and his engagements were such that he was obliged to be off again in the morning. (Applause.}" (Scotsman.) Mill was received with prolonged cheering, the audience rising and waving their hats and handkerchiefs.

IF THERE is A TRUTH in politics which is fundamental—which is the basis of all free government—it is that when a part of the nation are the sole possessors of power, the interest of that part gets all the serious attention. This does not necessarily imply any active oppression. All that it implies is the natural tendency of the average man to feel what touches self of vastly greater importance than what directly touches only other people. This is the deep-seated and ineradicable reason why women will never be justly treated until they obtain the franchise. They suffer, assuredly, much injustice by the operation of law. But suppose this changed; even then—even if there were no ground of complaint against the laws, there would be a break-down in their execution as long as men alone have a voice in choosing and in removing the officers of Government. All our recent constitutional reforms, and the whole creed of reformers, are grounded on the fact that the suffrage is needed for self-protection. All experience proves that if one part of the community is held in subjection by another part, it is not trusted with the ordinary means of self-defence, but is left dependent on the good-will and pleasure of those who are more privileged, the most vital interests of the subject-portion are certain to be, if not recklessly trampled upon, at least postponed to almost anything else. The treatment of women is certainly no exception to the rule. They have neither equal laws nor an equal administration of them. The laws treat them as they could not long be treated if they had the suffrage; and even if the laws were equal, the administration of the laws is not. Police magistrates and criminal judges cannot be exceptionally bad men; they are not chosen for their bad qualities; they must be

January 1871

Women's Suffrage [3]

403

thought, by those who appoint them, to represent fairly, or better than fairly, the moral feelings of average men. Yet, what do we see? For an atrocious assault by a man upon a woman, especially if she has the misfortune to be his wife, he is either let off with an admonition, or he is solemnly told that he has committed a grave offence, for which he must be severely punished, and then he gets as many weeks or months of imprisonment as a man who has taken five pounds' worth of property gets years. We are told that the good feelings of men are a sufficient protection to women. Those who say so can never, one would suppose, look into the police and law reports. If good feeling aof mena does not protect women against being beaten and kicked to death's door every day of their lives, and at last beaten and kicked to actual death, by their special guardians and protectors, can we expect that it will secure them against injuries less revolting to humanity? Most men, it will be said, are incapable of committing such horrible brutality. Perhaps so; but it seems they are quite capable of letting it be committed. If women who are maltreated by their husbands found a defender in every other man who knew of it, they might have some chance of protection without the weapon of the suffrage. But it is never so; slaves did not find it so; serfs did not find it so; conquered nations do not find it so; and neither do women. There are many men who would not consciously do them any wrong; but there must be a great moral improvement in human nature before most men will exert themselves to prevent or to redress wrongs committed by others under the sanction of law. And of these two things—the suffrage for women, and a grand moral improvement in human nature—the suffrage, to my thinking, is likely to be the soonest obtained. (Cheers.) I could afford to stop here. I have made out an ample case. There is a portion of the population, amounting in number to somewhat more than half, to whom the law and its administration do not fulfil their duty, do not afford even the bodily protection due to all—this half happening to be that which is not admitted to the suffrage. Their most important interests are neglected—I do not say from deliberate intention, but simply because their interest is not so near to the feelings of the ruling half as the ruling half's own interest. *The remedy is plain: putfo women in the position which will make their interest the rulers' own interest. Make it as important to politicians to redress the grievances of women as it is to redress those of any class which is largely represented in Parliament. If nothing more than this could be said in support of their claim to the suffrage, no claim could be more fully made out. (Cheers.) And if the claim is just, so also is it strictly constitutional. One of the recognised doctrines of the British Constitution is that representation is co-extensive with direct taxation. The practice of the Constitution, it is true, for a long time did not correspond with the theory; but it has been made to conform to it at last, in cities and boroughs, provided the tax-payer is a -°+TT 6 b

~ Scot

But how is this to be remedied? Put

404

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 150

of the male sex; but if a woman, she may be the largest tax-payer in the place, and the person of greatest practical ability besides; no matter, she has no vote. This is something very like punishing her for being a woman. The conditions which in the eye of the law and of the Constitution confer a title to a voice in public affairs are all fulfilled by her, with the single exception of having been born a male. This one deficiency, which I humbly submit she cannot help—(laughter}—is visited on her by the privation of a right as important to her as to any man, and even more important, since those who are physically weakest require protection the most. This is not an injury only, but an indignity. I grant that those who uphold it are in general quite unconscious of its being so; but this comes from the inveterate habit of having one rule and measure for all that concerns women, and another for everything else. Men are so much accustomed to think of women only as women, that they forget to think of them as human. (Hear, hear.} It is not only for their own sake that women ought to have the suffrage, but also for the sake of the public. It is for the interest of us all, both men and women, and of those who are to come after us. The reasons that may be given for this are many, but I may content myself with two. One, and the strongest, is what we sometimes hear unthinkingly urged as an argument on the other side—because women have so much power already. (Laughter.) It is true they have much power. They have the power which depends on personal influence over men. They have the power of cajolery— (laughter}—and often that of a petted favourite; power sadly inadequate to their own just and necessary protection against wrong, but sufficient at times to produce only too much effect upon the public conduct of the men with whom they are connected. But as this power, instead of being open and avowed, is indirect and unrecognised, no provision is made for its being rightly used. As it is conventionally assumed that women possess no power outside the domestic department, the power which they do and always will possess is exercised without the necessary knowledge, and without the proper responsibility. It having been decreed that public matters are not a woman's business, her mind is carefully turned away from whatsoever would give her a knowledge of them, and she is taught to care nothing about them—that is, until some private interest or private likings or dislikings come in, when of course these private feelings have it all their own way, there being no public principles or convictions to control them. The power, therefore, which women now have in public affairs is power without knowledge. It is also power without responsibility. A man's wife is very often the real prompter either of what he does well and nobly, or of what he does foolishly or selfishly; but as she gets no credit for the one, so she is not held accountable for the other; if she is selfish, a very little art suffices to exempt her from censure though she succeeds in compassing her ends; if she is simple and well meaning, she does not feel bound to inform herself, so as to have a Reasonable opinion on what is c c

~ Scot

rational opinion upon what she is told is

January 1871

Women's Suffrage [3]

405

solely thec man's business, though all the while her ignorant prepossessions or her natural partialities may be acting as a most pernicious bias on what is supposed to be his better judgment. From this combination of absence of instruction and absence of responsibility, it comes to pass that, though women are acknowledged to have, as a rule, stronger conscientious feelings than men, it is but a very small minority of women who have anything that deserves the name of a public conscience. How great an evil this is d, there needs no argument to show. What is the greatest obstacle which the friends of political and social improvement have to struggle with—the drag which is constantly obstructing their efforts and disappointing their hopes? Is it not the weakness of the average citizen's political conscience? Is not this the special danger and failure to which ^popular institutions e are exposed—that the elector does not sufficiently feel his obligations to the public, and either stays away from the poll, or goes there and votes on the prompting of some private interest? And how can we hope that he will learn to postpone private interests to public, while he has beside him, in the person of his closest intimate, one who has been trained to have no feeling whatever of his duties to the public, but who has the keenest feeling of his duties to his family, and who, even without intending it, cannot but sway his mind strongly in the direction of the only interests which she understands and appreciates? (Applause.) It must be remembered, too, that this is a growing evil. Time was when the wife was very little a companion of her husband—their lives were apart; the associates of his leisure and of his recreations were other men. But now the home and its inhabitants are so much to a man, that no other influence can, as a rule, compete with theirs. The time, therefore, is come when, if we would have public virtue in our men, we must have it in our women. (Hear, hear, and applause.) And how can a woman have a conscience about the public good, if she is told, and believes, that it is no business whatever of hers? Give women the same rights as men, and the same obligations will follow. Instead of hanging a dead weight on men's public conscience, their greater general susceptibility of moral feeling will make their habitual influence a most valuable support to the honest performance of public duty. (Loud applause.) This, then, is one of the reasons why it is for the good of all that women should have an admitted right to take part in public affairs. Another is the vast amount of brain power and practical business talent which now runs to waste for want of an outlet into those great fields of public usefulness, in which no one, I suppose, will pretend that such qualities are not very much wanted. Few men, I suspect, are sufficiently aware of the great amount of administrative ability possessed by women; for want of considering that the essential qualities which lead to practical success are the same in what are called small things as in great. It is my belief that, in all those parts of the business of life which depend on the vigilant superintendence and accurate estimation of details, women, when they d

Scot to man ^"Scot public movements

406

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 150

have the necessary special knowledge, are better administrators than men. And I am now speaking, not of women as they might be—not as some improved mode of education would make them—but of women as they now are, and of the capacities which they have already displayed. If an example is wanted of what women's powers of organisation can accomplish in public life, I appeal to one of the most striking facts of modern times, the Sanitary Commission in the late American War. The history of that Commission ought to be as well known all over the world as it is in America. From the beginning, and throughout, it was women's work. It was planned, organised, and worked by women. The Government was jealous of them at first, but the hopeless inferiority of its own arrangements made it soon glad to make over the first place to them. Not only had such work never been so well done, but nobody had ever supposed it possible that it could be so well done. I am aware that this argument would carry us much further than the suffrage; but I suppose it will be acknowledged that those who are themselves eminently capable of practical business, must be fit to take a share in the choosing of those to whom practical business is to be entrusted. The ability which is specially required for the exercise of the suffrage—that of selecting the persons most capable for the work that is to be done—is one of the qualifications for business in which women have always excelled. Great queens have in nothing shown themselves greater than in their choice of Ministers. When the ladies of the Sanitary Commission wanted men to help them, they knew the right men and how to use them; and they distinguished themselves not less by the work which they caused to be done, than by that which they did in their own persons. (Applause.) These are some of the reasons which make it equally just and expedient that the suffrage should be extended to women. It must, at the same time, be borne in mind that, by admitting them to the suffrage, no other question is in the smallest degree prejudged. Supposing it true, what some people are so fond of affirming, that women have nothing to complain of, and that the vast majority of them do not desire any change; if so, giving them the suffrage can do nobody harm, and would afford them an opportunity of showing their perfect contentment with their present lot, in a manner beyond the reach of dispute. (Applause.) If what we are told is true, that women ought to be, and always must and will be, in a state of domestic and social subordination to men, why, then, they require the suffrage so much the more, in order that the sovereignty of men over them may be exercised under the fitting responsibility. None need political protection so much as those who are in domestic dependence, since none are so much exposed to wrong. On every possible supposition, therefore, they have a claim to the suffrage. And we live at a period of human development, when the just claims of large numbers cannot be permanently resisted. The whole movement of modern society, from the middle ages until now, greatly accelerated in the present century, points in the direction of the political enfranchisement of women. Their exclusion is a last remnant of the old bad state of

January 1871

Women's Suffrage [3]

407

society—the regimen of privileges and disabilities. All other monopolies are going or gone. The whole spirit of the times is against predetermining by law that one set of people shall be allowed by right of birth to have or to do what another set shall not, by any amount of exertion or superiority of ability, be allowed to attain. (Applause.} If nature has established an ineradicable and insuperable difference in the capacities and qualifications of the two sexes, nature can take care of itself. What nature has decided may safely be left to nature. But when we find people making themselves uneasy for fear that nature's purposes should be frustrated unless law comes to her assistance, we may be pretty certain that it is not nature they are so careful about, but law pretending to be nature. To all such pretences the growing improvement of mankind is making them more and more adverse. I do not know how long a time it may require to get rid of women's disabilities. Great changes in the habits and opinions of mankind are always slow. But of one thing I am certain—that when once they have been got rid of—when their true aspect is no longer disguised by the varnish of custom and habit—they will appear in the retrospect so devoid of any rational foundation, and so contradictory to the principles by which society now professes to guide itself, that the difficulty which will be felt will be to conceive how they can ever have been defended, and by what possible arguments they can ever have been made to appear plausible. (Loud cheers.) ^The resolution I have to propose is—"That the ownership or occupation of lands or house being the basis of representation in this country, it is unjust in principle to make sex a ground of disqualification, thereby excluding a large number of intelligent persons well qualified to exercise the electoral franchise; and the recent school board elections in England have proved not only that women are desirous to exercise this right, but that they can do so without the slightest inconvenience, "f (Loud and prolonged cheering.} [The resolution was adopted unanimously, and then Professor Masson,l in a long speech that obtained a mixed reception, moved that the meeting thank Jacob Bright for his efforts in Parliament, and petition Parliament in favour of his bill, authorizing the Chair to sign the petition in the name of the meeting. The resolution was approved but not unanimously. Professor Kelland2 moved the vote of thanks to Mill, commenting that he "was known wherever the English language was spoken as one of our greatest philosophical thinkers—a thinker who had set his mind to knock down what was opposed to the progress of right and liberty." The motion

'David Masson (1822-1907), Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature at Edinburgh since 1865. 2 Philip Kelland (1808-79), Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh since 1838. •^+W] Scot Mr. Mill concluded, amid great applause, by proposing the following resolution: . . . as W . . . land or houses . . . exercise the franchise . . . England prove . . . that right. . . as W

408

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 150

3

was seconded by the Rev. Dr. Wallace, who referred to Mill as one "to whose mind every one who had the slightest pretension to culture and intelligence must gladly acknowledge himself under obligations of gratitude which could not well be expressed; a great and original philosopher, who had not speculated for his own amusement, but who had earnestly directed all his great gifts to questions and to enterprises bearing directly upon the highest welfare of mankind—a man who all his lifetime had set before himself the noblest objects, and who had striven to promote these, not by appeal to passion or to prejudice, but by a fairness and an honesty of reasoning that was equalled only by the transcendent ability which he had exercised in that direction. (Applause.) Sure he was that, whatever difference of opinion there might be—and difference of opinion might be expected in so large an assemblage as the present—with regard to the conclusions Mr. Mill had advocated before them, there could be but one sentiment of admiration and of gratification at having seen Mr. Mill amongst them, and having listened to an example of thefair, and close, and honest reasoning which he had made popular in this country, and by so doing, had contributed very largely to the development of an intellectual veracity among us which was not one of the least important virtues in these days, when there were so many temptations to sophistry and to the sinking down of the human intellect into ways that were not worthy of its dignity. (Applause.)" The motion was "warmly received, the bulk of the assemblage rising to their feet and cheering heartily."] 8 Mr. Stuart Mill said—I feel most strongly the kind manner in which my name has been received by the meeting, not that I think for an instant that I deserve a tenth part of the kind things said of me by the proposer and seconder of the motion; but I cannot refrain from saying that even much greater trouble than I have been put to in coming from London here would have been much more than requited by the sight of so grand a meeting as this. I know that the cause owes an immense debt to Scotland, and in Scotland to Edinburgh, and I cannot close these few words without moving the thanks of the meeting to a gentleman to whom, more perhaps than to any one in Edinburgh, the cause owes the most—Mr. Duncan McLaren. (Applause hand hissesh.) No one who has exerted himself in this cause has done more to promote it than that gentleman, and I may add, the ladies of his family.4 (Hear, hear.} To their exertions may be ascribed the rapid success which has 3 Robert Wallace (1831-99), rector of Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, since 1868, and examiner in philosophy at St. Andrews since 1866. 4 In addition to Priscilla McLaren, Duncan's wife (see No. 146, n2), Mill is referring specially to his daughter (by a previous marriage) Agnes (1837-1913); both of them were on the platform, Priscilla McLaren as President and Agnes McLaren as Secretary of the Edinburgh Branch of the National Society for Women's Suffrage.

*~*+W,Scot [Scot in summary] H h - + Scot

February 1871

The Cumulative Vote

409

attended this movement, not only in Edinburgh but throughout Scotland. In moving a vote of thanks to Mr. McLaren for his conduct in the chair, I may also add, for his past services in this cause.8 (Applause.) [This vote of thanks having been passed and acknowledged, another was given to the Ladies' Committee, who had organized the meeting, and the proceedings ended "with loud cheers for Mr. Mill." ]

151. The Cumulative Vote 13 FEBRUARY, 1871 Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 234-5 (fascicle for 16 February). The meeting was devoted to a paper by Thomas Hare, "On the Suggestions Afforded by the Application of the Cumulative Vote, and by the Other Incidents of the School Board Elections, for Improvement in the Constitution of Municipal and Local Governing Bodies" (ibid., pp. 215-26). Mill was in the Chair, and, as was customary, made the concluding remarks.

THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT a more satisfactory debate than this he had not often had the pleasure of hearing. There was not one speaker who did not show that he was entitled to be heard on the subject, and he thought that there was not one who had not contributed something useful to the debate. It was also extremely satisfactory to find that it was not necessary to defend Mr. Hare's system; no speaker had contested it. On the contrary, every one had shown a strong sense of its importance. The great principle of Mr. Hare's system was that one member of the community was entitled to as great a share in the representation as another—that the representation ought not to be engrossed by one portion of the community because it was the most numerous, but that every portion was entitled to be represented in the ratio of its numbers. This was the principle of Mr. Hare's system, and such a general assent had been given to it, such a strong sense has been manifested of its importance, there being no contrary opinion expressed, he did not think it at all necessary that he should use any argument, or give any summary on this point. He should only touch on a few other points that had been adverted to. The cumulative vote is, as everybody must see, a very imperfect mode of obtaining—partially—or a part of the results that would flow from Mr. Hare's system. Other systems have been proposed by several speakers which, in their opinion, though still imperfect, would approximate more nearly than the cumulative vote to the results which Mr. Hare aimed at; but he (the speaker) thought that these plans, if more closely considered, would be found not to approach so near as the cumulative vote. The disadvantages which they all

410

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 151

have—which the cumulative vote has—is that a number of votes are thrown away. No doubt if Mr. Hare's plan were adopted, the cumulative vote might be cured of a certain portion of this inconvenience. He did not know that it would be necessary to spread the election over so long a period as contemplated. It was suggested that there should be a periodical statement of the poll, as a way in which the cumulative vote might be made less a failure in the way of a waste of power. Other speakers spoke as if it were an easy matter to turn over surplus votes to another candidate, but no one had shown how this was to be done, nor did he see how it could be done. To whom should the transfer votes go? If there was a means of transferring them, it was a pity that it had not been stated. Sir William Eraser's recommendation of having a large constituency—the whole of London, for instance—was a very important and desirable thing;1 but if it were adopted without Mr. Hare's plan of the quota that would make matters worse than they were now, because now, opinions in the minority may be represented in some districts; and in that awkward way people would get a representation to which they were entitled. But if they took the whole of a very large constituency—if they took the whole of Great Britain, in that case, without the system of the quota, no minorities would be represented anywhere—none but the strong party in the nation would have any representation at all. With the quota, nothing could be more desirable than that they should go to that extreme point of taking in the whole nation, because they would attain by that means, not only the representation of minorities in a more complete manner than on a limited scale, but the most striking advantage of Mr. Hare's plan, namely, that the electors would have the whole country from which to choose the best men, instead of having to choose the best out of a small portion of the country. It had been suggested by Mr. Edwin Chadwick that the plan of allowing one vote to every elector for one single candidate would be a better plan than the cumulative vote,2 but he thought it would be attended with considerable disadvantage unless the principle of the quota were adopted with it. If one constituency could return no more than one representative, then they would lose the representation of minorities. This was not what Mr. Chadwick supposes; he must contemplate that under this rule of a single vote, the constituency should return a certain number of representatives, so as to admit of the representation of minorities. Under this system it would, perhaps, happen that every party would be represented, but certainly the majority were entitled to more than an equal representation. No one wished that minorities should have the same representation as majorities. The matter must be so regulated that majorities shall be able to have more than an equal 'William Augustus Fraser (1826-98), author of London Self-Governed (London: Harvey, 1866) and former M.P., had spoken before Mill: "On the Suggestions Afforded by the Application of the Cumulative Vote, and by the Other Incidents of the School Board Elections, for Improvement in the Constitution of Municipal and Local Governing Bodies," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 228-9. 2 Chadwick, ibid., p. 228.

February 1871

Contagious Diseases Acts

411

representation. By the plan Mr. Chadwick proposes, unless the quota were combined with it, it would be only favourable to candidates of the majority. The quota was the essence of Mr. Hare's system. By the principle of it, they got beyond the cumulative vote. The debate had been extremely valuable. [The session adjourned after votes of thanks to Hare and Mill.]

152. Discussion of the Contagious Diseases Acts 23 FEBRUARY, 1871 Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 269-70. Mill, a representative on the Council from the Economy and Trade Department, spoke on a motion in Council to postpone consideration of a resolution, passed at the Newcastle Congress, on the Contagious Diseases Acts until the Royal Commission had reported. He was preceded by Frederic Hill (1803-96), an Inspector of Prisons, who, strongly opposed to the policy of the Acts, spoke in favour of the postponement. MR. JOHN STUART MILL also acquiesced, at the same time stating that his conviction as to the moral aspect of the question and the general policy of the Acts could not be influenced by any collection of facts or inquiry made by the Commission.!

153. The Army Bill 10 MARCH, 1871 Daily Telegraph, 11 March, 1871, p. 5. Headed: "Our Military Expenditure." Also reported in slightly abbreviated form in The Times and in the Daily News. The evening meeting was called by the Working Men's Peace Association to protest against the government's proposal to increase military expenditure. The report in The Times, which calls the meeting "extremely noisy," says St. James's Hall "was not half full." Mill was in the Chair; the platform party included "a number of the representative men of the working classes." After a letter of support from Henry Fawcett was read, Mill spoke. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, whatever diversities aof opinion0 may exist in the country as to the proper constitution of our military force, and the proper limits of its amount, I think we all have reason to unite in a profound dissatisfaction with the '"Report of the Royal Commission upon the Administration and Operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts," PP, 1871, XIX, 3-20. For the Acts, See No. 146, nl. a

-"+TT,DN

412

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 153

Government measure.1 (Hear, hear.) It is offered as a great army reform to cure the notorious defects of our military system. But what are the defects of our present system? At an expense greater than would be necessary for an army, it gives us only an army corps. If an army is to be of fcany b use, it must be of use when it is wanted. But our army is vastly too large when it is not wanted, and vastly too small when it is. (Laughter and cheers.) If the time should come when we really require an army for the defence of these islands, the force we can muster is totally inadequate. We are as absolutely dependent on the Channel fleet for the safety of the country as if we had no military force at all, and we pay £14,000,000 a year for not having an army, when it costs the Prussian Government only half that sum to be able, as we have seen, to bring 500,000 trained men into the field at a fortnight's notice. (Hear, hear, and That's it.) This is what we have to remedy. Now, what is the remedy proposed? An increase which, except as regards the artillery, adds almost imperceptibly to our power of meeting an enemy, while to effect it £3,000,000 more a year are to be added to the present £14,000,000 cof costc, without counting any of the other millions which we are to pay for the abolition of purchase.2 (Hear.) Whatever our ideas may be of the sort of changes which are requisite, this, I think, is a kind of reform which cannot satisfy any one. (Cheers.) Efficiency is one thing, and economy is one thing, but if we are to have neither efficiency nor economy, it is time we took the matter into our own hands. (Cheers.) We should try to have—both. (Loud cheers.) I should heartily rejoice if I could conscientiously believe that we could do without an army, and could trust only to our fleet. (Hear, hear.) But no country is safe with only one line of defence, and we cannot be sure of always keeping the command of the sea without a single day's intermission, which would be necessary if our only force were the fleet. We must remember that our navy has a great deal to do. We have possessions all over the world which in case of war we are bound to protect as well as our own islands, and we may have to contend against not one maritime Power only, but against several; and if we persist in sanctioning dby our silence d the act of our late Foreign Minister done without authority in 1856, and never ratified,3 we abandon one of our most effective edefensivec weapons—the ^ower^ of attacking an '"A Bill for the Better Regulation of the Regular and Auxiliary Land Forces of the Crown; and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto," 34 & 35 Victoria (16 Feb., 1871), PP, 1871,1, 11-38 (enacted as 34 & 35 Victoria, c. 86 [1871]). 2 For the additional £3,000,000, see "Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services, for 1871-72,"PP, 1871, XXXVIII, 3. The abolition of purchase of commissions was provided in Clause 2 of the Bill under discussion (see nl above), and was effected by a Royal Warrant (1 Nov., 1871), PP, 1871, XXXIX, 601. 3 For the action of George Villiers, Lord Clarendon, with reference to the Declaration of Paris, see No. 80, n5. fc fc - +TT,DN C +TT rf_d+TTDN e -'+TT,DN ^TT.DN right

March 1871

Army Bill

413

enemy through his commerce. The fleet of a Power at war with us would have nothing to do but to watch 8for8 the opportunity of landing an army on our shores, and we should not know ''which amongst many points would be attacked, and if our fleet were drawn off for two days by false information, the mischief might be doneA. (Hear, hear.) Such a catastrophe is not probable '—we hope it is not even possible—but we' had a narrow escape from it just before Trafalgar, and we must contemplate the possibility of our having to defend ourselves against a powerful enemy who has succeeded in effecting a landing. Now, we might as well have no means of defence, as means not sufficient to prevent the country being overrun. The great and important point is that this cannot be accomplished by any possible increase of our standing army. (Cheers.) We are living in an age when wars are made by nations in arms, and we know now how effectually an armed nation can repel an invasion. 'Now that no nation is armed unless the nation in arms is ready to defend, noj country can afford to keep a standing army great enough for the purpose—and least of all we, whose military system costs us £100 *a year* for every soldier it gives us. Henceforth our army should be our whole people trained and disciplined. (Hear, hear, and a voice, That won't do.) Not kept in barracks for three years like the Prussians, nor even for two years which the Liberals of Prussia stood out for. What is wanted is to take every year those who have 'just' arrived at manhood—(No, no)—and to place them in military training for a few weeks or months, in the way that is found sufficient in Switzerland. (Loud cheers, and Oh!) The foundation of "'the training should be laid, as it is in Switzerland,m at school, and if it is well done, a few weeks' training in the field in the first year of manhood makes a good soldier, and a fortnight's drill annually for a few years afterwards suffices to keep him so. (Hear.) When a system of this sort had existed for some years, we should require no standing army except the scientific corps, and as many as might be required for garrisons in India and for colonies whose inhabitants were not yet competent for self-defence. (Hear, hear.) A. citizen army in time of peace would cost the Government nothing except for the short period of its embodiment, and the loss of productive power by withdrawing from industry for a short time young men of that age would scarcely be felt, and would be more than compensated by the good effects of military training in making them more steady and vigorous for the ordinary pursuits of life. Then, if war should break out, there would be a large army quite ready, and abundant reserves ready to reinforce it if occasion required. But, it will be said, these are only raw soldiers. Well, are not a standing army raw soldiers at the first breaking-out of *-*+TT,DN

fc-frpj- wjjere flje blow would fall. Our fleet has only to be two days out of the way and our first line of defence is gone '~'TT but we must remember that it is possible. We •/~/TT,DN A nation in arms requires a nation in arms to withstand it. No *-*+TT,DN '-'+TT.DN m m ~ TT,DN] DT this is laid

414

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 153

every war which is preceded by many years of peace? and I hope there will always be many years of peace between our wars. One would suppose it had been our practice to keep our standing army always fighting. A soldier is not like a carpenter or a sailor, whose whole life is passed in the active exercise of his profession. When the country is at peace our soldiers have no more experience of actual warfare than our citizens have. They are idle, and something worse (cheers), repeating merely elementary preparatory exercises, not the more skilled work of soldiering. Why does a man need to be constantly practising the goose step, when once he has learned it? Unless the country, therefore, like old Rome, is always at war, citizen soldiers and professionals have equally to learn their real business after the war has commenced; and the late war in America shows how well and quickly citizen soldiers learn. (Cheers.) No doubt if we were attacked by a Power with practised soldiers it would be some disadvantage to us to have none of ours; but this inconvenience must be undergone in any case, unless we are always fighting to keep our hands in; and we must "therefore" make it up by numbers, as the Prussians have done, °for they, be it remembered0, at the time of the Danish campaign, had no soldiers who had seen service. Let us, then, make our people our army—(cheers)—as has been done in Prussia; but let us not keep them together p, in time of peace/ any longer than is sufficient for training. There is no true military reform but this; and a bill which, instead of pointing in this direction, points in the opposite—which gives us a more expensive standing army than ever, and does no one thing towards making the people themselves a defensive force—is not a reform, but a continuation and an aggravation of evils. (Loud cheers.) I recognise only two things in the bill as worthy of praise. One is the increase of our artillery. Undoubtedly, this country ought to have the very best instruments of war which ingenuity can devise, and an ample supply of them and of men trained to use them; and no doubt artillerymen require long training. The other point is the abolition of purchase—(cheers)—but it is only good as part of a system, and where is the system of which it ought to be a part? The great evil of purchase is that it officers the army with idle men who have never done a day of hard, dull work in their lives (laughter and cheers), and who scorn the idea of ^studying theirq business. (Hear, hear.) But what is there in this bill to compel officers to study and understand their work as the Prussians do? The first commissions are to be given by competition, and that is good; but then promotion is to go by selection, which unless guarded by infinite precautions, means favouritism and all the old evils'". (Hear, hear.) A competition at starting may keep out actual dunces and incorrigible idlers; but that ordeal once passed—and experience shows that it can «-"+TT,DN

°-°TT] DT.DN who - +TT,DN 9 -«TT,DN] DT steady r "TT] DT,DN favour

p p

March 1871

Army Bill

415

be passed with a very moderate amount of exertion—what is there to hinder the army from being officered by the same sort of persons and from the same motives as at present—namely, gentlemanly excitement? (Hear, hear.} And really, if this is to continue, the abolition of purchase is not worth paying for. (Cheers.) If our armies are to be led by men who want to amuse themselves by playing at soldiers, the only good point in the whole matter is that they are made to pay handsomely for their amusement. (Laughter and Hear, hear.) Rich men may be very brave and dashing, if you will; but I sincerely hope they will never have to fight any of the nations which before many years have passed will have remodelled their armies after the Prussian pattern. (Hear.) The purchase of commissions is an evil and a blot, but it may as well be left as it is as abolished without stringent provisions that promotion shall only be possible to those men who have made a serious study of the military art. (Hear.) The bill, therefore, considered as a whole, is a step in the wrong direction. It does not appreciably strengthen us for national defence, and it contains no germs of a better system for the future. The least that can be done in such a case is to demand that, if we are not to have a better army, at least we shall not be required to pay for inefficency three millions a year more than we pay already. I therefore heartily concur in the object of the present meeting. (Loud cheers.) [A resolution was moved, that the meeting refused to sanction an increased expenditure on the army, which was already the most costly in Europe, and regretted the weakness of a Liberal government in yielding to ill-founded alarmist fears and increasing the burden on an already over-taxed people. The proceedings were interrupted by a "knot of persons in the gallery, who exhibited a flag bearing the word 'republic,' and who also loudly vociferated their objection to the Princess Louise's dowry"; the Chair "reminded the interrupters that the meeting had been called for a different purpose, and that they were at liberty to hold meetings on their own account to give ventilation to their views on those subjects" (Daily News). The motion was supported by Jacob Bright, who expressed disagreement with some views of Mill, specifically that England should be a nation of soldiers; P. A. Taylor also spoke in support, avowing agreement with Mill as to the need for a national force. After the failure of an amendment protesting against the Army Regulation Bill because it did not limit the tenure of the Commander-in-Chief or prevent German Princes from retaining commands in the Guards, the resolution was approved unanimously, and then a motion was made (on behalf of the "men of the North") that the meeting call on the Members of Parliament to resist by all constitutional means the government'sproposals to increase military expenditure; the motion was unanimously approved, and the meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to Mill, which was approved with cheers.]

416

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 154

154. Land Tenure Reform [1] 15 MAY, 1871 Land Tenure Reform Association. Report of the Inaugural Public Meeting, Held at the Freemason's Hall, London, Monday, 15th May, 1871 (London: Higginbottom, 1871), pp. 3-11. Reported on 16 May in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, and more briefly in the Daily News. Reprinted in the posthumous fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions (London: Longmans, 1875), pp. 251-65. Some of the audience's responses are taken from the newspaper reports. The evening meeting, "densely crowded," with "all classes of reformers" filling "the great body" of the hall, was chaired by Mill, the President of the Association, who spoke first, and "was received with loud and long-continued applause" (The Times). AFTER THE GREAT CHANGES that have been made in our political constitution it is impossible that the laws relating to landed property should not come up for revision. (Cheers.) It is a rule, to which history as yet furnishes few exceptions, that nations are governed by their landed proprietors. (Hear.) At all events, they have ruled this country; not despotically, for the people, in the last five centuries, have always had some share in the government; but the landlords, and those who looked forward to being landlords, have had the command of Parliament up to the last Reform Act, and still wield enormous power. (Hear.) The making of the laws which concern themselves has been in their own hands; and they have used the power as people generally do use power, for the promotion chiefly of their own objects. (Laughter and cheers.) I do not charge them with any special perversity, or with being worse in any respect than people usually are. They shared the common infirmity of human nature, which it requires a rare strength of character to overcome. (Hear.) It must be said also of our landed classes of the present and of recent times, that they did not make these selfish laws, but inherited them. Their own minds were enslaved by traditional notions handed down from ancestors more overbearing, more tyrannical, less capable of understanding the rights of other people, than any one is now. We ought to feel the greatest indulgence for the difficulty they have in freeing themselves from these mental trammels; and we should make our appeal, not only to the public, but to the more high-minded and open-minded of the landowners themselves, of whom there are a great number, to use their minds on these questions, and help us to get rid of the effects of past injustice. (Cheers.) For the injustice, truly, was great. I pass over the original title by which landed property was acquired, which we know, in this country, was for the most part foreign conquest. Nor need I expatiate on the slavery, or serfdom, in which the rural population were kept for so many centuries; for that has long been at an end. I confine myself to evils which are still unremedied, and I remark that the land was formerly held subject to the obligation of personal service in time of war, and many

May 1871

Land Tenure Reform [I]

417

burdensome dues of the Crown in time of peace, from all of which, in the reign of Charles II, the landlords relieved themselves; and what did they grant to the Crown instead? An excise on beer!1 (Laughter.) Soon after this came the Revolution of 1688, which, among other characteristics, had one not sufficiently noticed by historians; it was a revolution made by the towns against the country gentlemen. One of the fruits of it was a tax on the land, of 45. in the pound,2 which at that time may have been considered an equivalent for the burdens which had been taken off the landlords. But the lands were rated to the tax at a fixed valuation, made by the landlords to begin with, and which, in spite of the enormous increase in the value of land, has never since been raised; so that the nominal 4s. does not now exceed a real Is., while on the vast town properties which have been created by the extension of building it is often only a fraction of a penny. That is the first great wrong done to the nation by the landed interest. The second is this:—The rights of landed proprietors were in many cases legally limited by rights of common enjoyed by the neighbouring inhabitants. These rights the landlords have been gradually absorbing; formerly, often by downright usurpation; latterly, by the machinery of private Acts of Parliament and the Enclosure Commissioners; and they are even now pursuing the same course, dividing among themselves every year thousands of acres which ought to be left open for the enjoyment or cultivated for the benefit of the people. While this process of absorption has been going on, a set of laws have been in force, made by the landlords, and intended to make sure that no land which once got within their grip should ever get out of it. The laws of landed tenure have been contrived for the purpose of keeping together the largest possible landed possessions in the families which already hold the land; and though these laws have been considerably relaxed in the progress of improvement, such is still their practical effect. So much are the power and dignity of the class the first object, that to it are sacrificed the interests and wishes of the very persons who for the time being represent the class. When land is in settlement, as most land is, the landowner has only a life interest in what is called his property; he can neither sell it, nor bequeath it, nor even grant leases exceeding, I believe, 21 years.3 The landlord himself is denied the full use of the land, for fear that some of it should go out of the family into other hands. (Cheers.) It is time that this mode of dealing with landed property, as if it existed for the power and dignity of the proprietary class and not for the general good, should henceforth cease. This Association acknowledges no other legitimate end of landed property than the interest we all have in the proper application of the land to the wants of the human race. The Association recognizes no rights to land that are not subordinate to this: and they have inscribed in their programme a series of !

By 12 Charles II, c. 24(1660). By 4 William and Mary, c. 1 (1692). 3 By 19 & 20 Victoria, c. 120 (1856). 2

418

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 154

measures intended to bring back landed property to this its rightful purpose.4 (Cheers.) Some of the articles of our programme it is sufficient just to mention, because, though very important, they are of so moderate a character that they hardly need any justification. For example, it is quite unnecessary that I should say anything against the law of primogeniture, for that is sure to go. The present Government have taken that task upon themselves.5 (Hear.) Something must be said about the laws of settlement and entail, by which land can be settled on a series of persons one after another, ending with one who is perhaps unborn, and until this unborn child comes of age the land cannot be sold, nor any change be made in the order of descent. Now, whether any other kind of property, in the funds for instance, should be allowed to be bequeathed in this manner, need not now be considered; but the land is too precious to the whole community to be detained by legal fetters in the hands of those who cannot make the best use of it. Land tied up from alienation stagnates in the hands of the idler, the spendthrift, the incapable; allow it to be sold, and they are soon obliged to part with it to the "skilfula, the energetic, the enterprising. (Cheers.) If the law allows land to be private property, it should be as marketable a commodity, sold and bought with as little restriction, as any article of commerce. This was an object very dear to Mr. Cobden, who thought that free trade in land would end by bringing a great part of the land into the hands of the people:6 and many excellent persons, of strong popular sympathies, go thus far, who have not yet been able to reconcile themselves to going with us any further. I will say no more on this point, as I have to speak of others which require explanation much more. We hold that all property in land is subject to the will of the State. This is the broad principle on which our claims are founded, and which, as long as it is confined to theory, few will dispute. Land—and by land I mean the whole material of the earth, underground as well as above—not having been made by man, but being the gift of nature to the whole human race, could only be appropriated by the consent, either express or tacit, of society: and society remains the interpreter of its own permission; with power to make conditions, with power even to revoke its consent, on giving due compensation to the interests that it has allowed to grow up. There is an Association, known as the Land and Labour League, which maintains 4 Mill himself drew up the Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association (London: Longmans, etal, 1871); see CW, Vol. V, pp. 687-95. 5 A bill had been promised by Gladstone, Speech on Real Estate Intestacy (16 Feb., 1871), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 204, col. 322, but in the event no bill was introduced. Article II of the Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association called for the abolition of primogeniture (CW, Vol. V, p. 689). 6 Speech at Rochdale (23 Nov., 1864), in Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, ed. John Bright and James E. Thorold Rogers, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1870), Vol. II, p. 367.

"'"DT

speculative

May 1871

Land Tenure Reform [1]

419

that society ought to exert this ^extreme* right.7 According to them, all the land of the country should be nationalized, and the rents paid into the Exchequer, compensation being made to the proprietors. This opinion the Land Tenure Reform Association does not as a body adopt. Many members of the Land and Labour League, waiving differences of opinion, are members also of this Association, but it contains many other members who are of a contrary opinion. Speaking for myself individually, I should say that the thing might rightfully be done, if it were expedient to do it, and I do not know that it may not be reserved for us in the future; but at present I decidedly do not think it expedient. I have so poor an opinion of State management (cheers), or municipal management either (hear, and laughter) that I am afraid many years would elapse before the revenue realized for the State would be sufficient to pay the indemnity which would be justly claimed by the dispossessed proprietors. It requires, I fear, a greater degree of public virtue and public intelligence than has yet been attained (laughter) to administer all the land of a country like this on the public account. (Cheers.) The administration of the waste lands is as much, I think, as we are at present equal to. At all events, I think we had better make a beginning with that, and give a thorough trial to collective before we substitute it for individual management. And since I have been led to speak of the waste lands, I will next explain that part of the Society's programme which concerns them. The greatest stickler for the rights of property will hardly deny that if cland, the gift of nature to us all, is allowed to be the private property ofc some of us, it is in order that it may be cultivated. Every defence of the institution of landed property that I have met with, declares that to be its object. Why, then, should any land be appropriated that is not cultivated? Observe, by cultivated, I do not mean ploughed up. Pasturage is as necessary, in this country even more necessary, than corn land; and woodland is necessary too. I do not make war against parks; they are already very productive pasturage, almost the best sheep pastures we have; and the extreme beauty of many of them, a kind of beauty found in no country but this, and which is our chief compensation for the paleness of our sun and sky, should make us prize them as a national benefit. I should be sorry to see the trees cut down, and the ground laid out as farms are laid out now, in ugly squares of cornfield, without even hedgerows to separate them. I own, however, that I do not think the possessors should have power to bar out the public from the sight and enjoyment of this beauty. With reasonable reservation for privacy, I think that parks should be open to the public, as, to the credit of the owners, many are now. But what we are at present concerned with is the wastes,—the really wild lands, which are still as 7

See the Address of the Land and Labour League to the Working Men and Women of Great Britain and Ireland (London: printed Higginbottom, [1869]). *-*DT inherent C C ~ DT the land be given by nature and was taken from

420

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 154

nature left them, producing nothing except wild animals and spontaneous vegetation. Now, I don't say that it was wrong not to cultivate these lands. I don't say that all of them ought to be cultivated now; but I say that, cultivated or not, they ought to belong to the nation. If a common is not to be cultivated, why should any man be allowed to put a fence round it and exclude the rest of the world? If it is to be cultivated, what excuse is there for dividing it among the landowners, instead of keeping it for the people? Even if some landlord had a legal right to cultivate it, a right not used for so many centuries has fairly lapsed by disuse. But in general nobody has the right, and whoever wishes to cultivate must ask permission from Parliament. What has kept some good lands uncultivated is that a great many persons have rights of common, entitling them to use the spontaneous produce. When the lord of the manor and all the commoners agree, they can divide the land among themselves and enclose it.8 Fortunately, a single public-spirited commoner, refusing his consent, can frustrate this beautiful arrangement; and in this way, quite recently, Berkhampstead and Plumstead and other commons have been saved. When the commoners do not all consent, or when there are too many of them to be bought out one by one, application is made to the Enclosure Commissioners, who put the common into their annual Bill and divide it among the landholders. As the 30,000 persons who share among them the cultivated soil of this island have not yet, as it appears, got land enough, Parliament throws in every year many thousand acres more, to which it is not even pretended that they have a right. And observe at whose cost this has been done. The rural labourers had once (it was a long time ago) a very substantial benefit from the waste lands. Most of them occupied cottages on or near some common or green, and could feed a cow or a few geese upon it. The cottager had then something, though it was but little, that he could call his own; he did not absolutely depend for daily food on daily wages or parish assistance: when the common was taken away he had to sell his cow or his geese, and sink into the dependent, degraded condition of an English agricultural labourer. He often got no compensation: when he did, if it was even a little bit of the land, he was soon cheated out of it or persuaded to sell it, the money was quickly spent, and his children were no better for it. They would have been much better for the cow and the geese. In modern Enclosure Bills there are sometimes, though by no means always, a few wretched acres reserved for recreation ground and garden allotments; by which last phrase are meant small patches of ground, not given to the labourers, but which they are allowed to hire at enormous rents. There is now before the House of Commons a Bill brought in by the Government, which professes to be a reform of this system. And what does the Bill say? It says that in future, when a common is enclosed, a tenth part of it shall be reserved for 8

8 & 9 Victoria, c. 118(1845).

May 1871

Land Tenure Reform [I]

421

recreation and allotments—provided that this tenth does not exceed 50 acres9 (laughter). More than 50 acres are not to be reserved on any account, not even if the Enclosure Commissioners should do so unheard-of a thing as to propose it. Fifty acres, out of sometimes 1,500 or 2,000! Fifty acres for the people; all the rest for the 30,000! What a state of things it must be when such a proposal as this is called, and really is, an improvement! (Loud cheers.) The Land Tenure Reform Association invite the public to join in uncompromising opposition to this system. We demand, not fewer enclosures or larger reservations, but no more enclosures at all, unless for the benefit of the people. Let lords of manors and commoners receive a money equivalent for the profits they now derive from their rights in the land, and let the land itself be vested in some public authority in trust for the nation. The first thing to be done is what was proposed in the House of Commons by Mr. Winterbotham—let us hope that, now when he is in the Government, he will endeavour to obtain it for us—a general survey of the waste lands.10 When it has been made known what they are, their quantity, their quality, and their situation, then appoint a Commission to consider and report what portion of them should be kept open for the enj oyment of the lovers of natural freedom and beauty, and what part should be cultivated for the benefit, not of the rich, but of the poor. And let the first thought be for the most depressed part of our working population, the wretchedly paid, downtrodden, semipauperised, agricultural labourers. The experience of allotments has shown how much the occupation of land, even on the most extortionate terms, can do for these neglected creatures. The allotments are generally the worst land in the parish, but the produce they raise from it is prodigious, and enables them to pay exorbitant rents. Let them have it at rents that are not exorbitant: and when they have had it long enough to show that they are capable of managing it properly, let them have long leases at fixed rents; and when a labourer has shown that he knows how to make good use of a little land, give him more. (Cheers.) When possible, make the engagements with associations of labourers, combining their labour, that the great principle of co-operative industry may have a fair trial on the land. By these improvements, honestly conducted by persons who desire their success, a new life may be breathed into our unfortunate agricultural population, while a fair share of the value given to the lands by reclamation would go in relief of the general taxation of the country. (Loud cheers.) But the commons are not the only lands in the kingdom which have as yet been 9

Clause 3 of "A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Inclosures of Commons, and to Provide for the Management of Commons Situate near Towns," 34 Victoria (14 Feb., 1871), PP, 1871, II, 377-96 (not enacted). 10 Henry Selfe Page Winterbotham (1837-73), M.P. for Stroud, appointed Undersecretary of State for the Home Department in March 1871, Speech on the Inclosure Law Amendment Bill (23 Feb., 1871), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 204, col. 825.

422

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 154

kept out of private hands. There are also the great estates of public bodies and endowed institutions. (Cheers.} Of all the abuses and malversations in the management of public matters in this country, the abuses of endowments are the most flagrant. (Hear, hear.) It begins to be felt that the whole of them ought to be taken in hand by the nation and thoroughly reformed; and a thorough reform in most cases means that their lands should either be managed for them by the State, or taken away altogether, such of them as are fit to be continued receiving money endowments instead. If this were done, a great extent of landed possessions would be at the disposal of the nation; and with all the defects of State management, management by endowed institutions is generally so much worse, that even after giving them full compensation, to which many of them are by no means entitled, a considerable surplus would probably be realised for the State. Much of this is town property; a distinguished member of this Association, who knows the subject officially, can tell you, that one may walk for several miles across London without once taking his foot off the property of some endowed institution. 11 1 have seen it estimated that a fifth part of London belongs to them. It is well known how great a hindrance the obstinate selfishness of the owners of house property opposes to that most urgent reform, the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes. If those lands were resumed, what facilities would be afforded for that, as well as for open spaces, public gardens, co-operative buildings, useful public institutions, sanitary measures, and generally for all improvements that are beneficial to the poorer classes. (Cheers.) These are our purposes with regard to the lands which are not yet swallowed up in the possessions of private individuals. It remains to tell you what we propose respecting lands which belong to private owners.12 The Association does not propose to resume these lands, nor to take from the holders by a forced sale any part of the value which they have already acquired. We leave undisturbed present possessions. But there is an incident of landed property which goes beyond present possession, and which we do not feel bound to respect. Land is limited in quantity, while the demand for it, in a prosperous country, is constantly increasing. The rent, therefore, and the price, which depends on the rent, progressively rises, not through the exertion or expenditure of the owners, to which we should not object, but by the mere growth of wealth and population. The incomes of landowners are rising while they are sleeping, through the general prosperity produced by the labour and outlay of other people. Some people ask—But why single out the land? Does not all property rise in value with the increase of prosperity? I answer, no. All other property fluctuates in value, now up, now down. I defy anyone to show any kind of property, not partaking of the 1

'Thomas Hare, experienced as an Inspector of Charities, gave this information in a reply to Mill before the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, PP, 1866, Vol. XIII, p. 387 (see App. B, Question 2811, below). 12 See especially Art. IV of the Programme, CW, Vol. V, p. 690.

May 1871

Land Tenure Reform [I]

423

soil, and sufficiently important to be worth considering, which tends steadily upward, without anything being done by the owners to give it increased value. So far from it, that the other of the two kinds of property that yield income, namely capital, instead of increasing, actually diminishes in value as society advances; the poorer the country, or the further back we go in history, the higher we find the interest of money to be. Land alone—using land as a general term for the whole material of the earth—has the privilege of steadily rising in value from natural causes; and the reason is that land is strictly limited in quantity: the supply does not increase to meet the constant increase of demand. The Land Tenure Reform Association see no grounds of justice upon which this surplus value, the creation of society itself, should be abandoned to the landholders. We think it, for example, consummately unreasonable that because certain families, or their progenitors two or three generations ago, happened to own land over which this great capital, or other large towns, have since extended themselves, the estates of these families should now be worth millions of money, to which they have contributed nothing either in work or expenditure except signing leases. Well would it have been if this diversion of the public wealth had been foreseen and guarded against long ago: let us at least prevent any more gigantic fortunes from being built up in a similar manner. The Association claims for the State the right to impose special taxation upon the land, equivalent to its special advantage. Some writers and others, who do not know the meaning of words, call this confiscation; although we tell them that if any landlord objects to it, we are ready to hold him harmless, by taking the land off his hands at its present selling price. This is all he would have been entitled to if his land had been taken for a railroad; and if this is confiscation, every Railway Act is confiscation too. For my part, I am well convinced that landlords will prefer to retain their land even on the altered conditions. But if any landlord finds that the State does him an injustice, by laying on a tax more than equivalent to the natural increase of his rent, we leave the original offer still open; he may at any time avail himself of it, by accepting the sum first tendered, with the addition of compensation for any improvement made in the meantime by himself. (Cheers.) By this reform, if the country remains prosperous, a considerable revenue will in time be obtained by the State from the increased value of land. It would not begin to come in immediately, because time must be allowed for the increased value to accrue. But I see no reason why the State should not grant, to any landlord who desires it, a lease of its prospective rights; allowing him to free himself for life, or for a term of years, from the claim of the State on the increase of his rental, by paying during that period a fixed annual sum; whereby the State would obtain a part of the pecuniary benefit at once. Or he might commute the claim for an extra succession duty on any vacancy that occurred within the term. These are the principles and the proposals of the Land Tenure Reform Association. There are persons to whom these measures appear extremely audacious and subversive. I expect rather that those who come after us may think

424

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 154

our proposals very moderate and timid. For it is easy to foresee that this country, and all Europe, are entering upon an era in which they will have to discuss novelties far more alarming, and which will kindle much fiercer passions than these. To confine myself to the subject of land, the idea of an entire abolition of landed property is taking a strong hold on an active and stirring portion of the working classes. Ours is an honest attempt to find a middle ground of compromise, which, avoiding individual injustice, and sparing past acquisitions, shall maintain the right of the entire community to all that it has not yet parted with, and finally close the door to any further private appropriation of what should belong to the public. It does not seem to me that this is too much for the landed interest to concede; and less than this there is not the smallest chance that the working classes will long accept. Even those who take the most unfavourable view of the changes in our social arrangements which are demanded with increasing energy in behalf of the working classes, would be wise to consider that when claims are made which are partly just and partly beyond the bounds of justice, it is no less politic than honest to concede with a good will all that is just, and take their defensive stand on the line, if they are able to find it, which separates justice from injustice. (Loud cheers.) [The first resolution asserted that the laws relating to landed tenure should be altered so as to serve the general interest rather than that of a class; an amendment by M.J. {"Citizen") Boon (Brook in the Daily Telegraph,), seconded by J. Johnson ("a rough-looking fellow," who said he was called "Johnson the Second" [The Times]), that the Land Tenure Reform Association was not worthy of working-class support because it did not favour land nationalization, was rejected by a large majority, and the resolution was carried. A second motion was moved that the meeting approved the formation of the Land Tenure Reform Association. It was announced by Mill that Odger, who was to have supported it, though present was too indisposed to speak; an amendment by John Cunnington, a farmer, opposing minute subdivisions of land in cooperative ventures, failed to find a seconder, and the motion passed. Then Weston moved thanks to Mill, emphasizing that it was no mere formality, but came from the heart, and saying: "Not only is the Chairman entitled to our thanks for the able and enlightened address to which we have listened this evening, and for the thoroughly impartial manner in which he has performed the duties of Chairman, but. . . he is still more entitled to our thanks for placing himself at the head of an Association, which, though it does not go in exactly for nationalization, goes a very long way in that direction. . . . " The resolution was carried by acclamation, and the meeting concluded.}

March 1873

Land Tenure Reform [2]

425

155. Land Tenure Reform [2] 18 MARCH, 1873 Land Tenure Reform Association. Report of the Public Meeting, held at Exeter Hall, London, on Tuesday, March 18th, 1873 (London: Offices of the Association, 1873), pp. 3-8. Reported on 19 March in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News. Reprinted in the posthumous fourth volume of Dissertations and Discussions (London: Longmans, 1875), pp. 278-87. Some of the audience's responses are taken from the newspaper accounts. The large evening meeting was chaired by Mill, the President of the Association, who was enthusiastically received, and spoke first.

IN INVOKING the assistance of this meeting to our efforts for Land Tenure Reform, many explanations that would have been absolutely necessary as lately as two years ago may now be dispensed with. It is no longer necessary to begin at the very beginning to show how there comes to be a land question, and what the question is. The newspapers and the speeches of Members of Parliament and others are full of it; friends and enemies have alike helped to bring it into notice; and we now read everywhere of Land Tenure Reform, and the unearned increment of rent. Most of you probably know, at least in a general way, the creed and aims of the Land Reformers, and I need only, at present, briefly remind you of them. We hold that land—in which term we include mines (cheers) and the whole raw material of the globe—is a kind of property unlike any other. The rights of private individuals to something which they did not make, or help to make, but which came to them by bequest or inheritance from people who also did not make it, or help to make it, are a totally different thing from the right of everyone to the product of his own labours and sacrifices, or to the product of the labours and sacrifices of those who freely gave it to him. (Hear, hear.) What a man has earned by his labour, or by the expenditure of what has been saved from previous earnings, he has a fair claim to do what he likes with, subject only to the general rules of morality. But he who detains the land—a thing not made by man, a thing necessary to life, and of which there is not enough for all—is in a privileged position. Whether it is right or wrong that he should be in such a position, he is so. He is, in a word, a monopolist (loud cheers); and a monopoly should be exercised, not at the mere will and pleasure of the possessor, but in the manner most consistent with the general good; the State has exactly the same right to control it that it has to control, for instance, the railways. (Cheers.) The Land Reformers are of opinion that the time has arrived for the State to re-assert this right, to correct the abuses of landed property, and adapt it better to the wants and interests of the community considered as a whole. How far the modifications should reach is a point on which all Land Reformers are not yet agreed. I need only speak of those which are advocated by this Association.

426

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 155

Without going the length of those who think that the nation should re-possess itself of all private lands, subject to a just compensation, we yet maintain that at least no further appropriation of lands which are not already private property should be permitted. (Cheers.) We protest against the conversion of public or corporate lands into private property. (Cheers.) Still more indignantly do we protest against any more Acts of Parliament for dividing the common lands of the country among the neighbouring landholders. (Loud cheers.) Instead of giving the lands to the rich, and a miserable apretencea of compensation to the poor, we insist that the lands should be for the poor, and the compensation for the rich (laughter and cheers)—compensation for what their manorial and other rights now bring in to them; for the most part a very small value. (Hear.) We further maintain that permission to own the land does not necessarily carry with it a right to the increase of value which the land is constantly acquiring by the mere progress of the public prosperity. We affirm that this spontaneous increase of value may justly be taken for the public by means of special taxation. These are the two chief points of our programme:—First, no more land, under any pretext, to become the private property of individuals (cheers); secondly, taxation on the land, in order to give the benefit of its natural increase of value to the whole community, instead of to the proprietors, these being allowed the option of relinquishing the land at its present money value. (Cheers.) Let us consider these points one by one.! Few persons are less inclined than I am to call hard names; it is generally best, even when we are protesting against an injustice, to protest against it under the most moderate appellation which it admits of. But there are cases when things ought to be called by names which throw no veil over their enormity, and I confess that I cannot speak of the existing practice of dividing the common lands among the landlords by any gentler name than robbery—robbery of the poor. (Cheers.) It will, of course, be said that people cannot be robbed of what is not theirs, and that the commons are not the legal property of the poor. Certainly not; our masters have taken care of that. (Cheers.) They have taken care that the poor shall not acquire property by custom, as all other ^classes b have done. But if the commons are not the property of the poor, they are just as little the property of those who take them. They cannot make them their property without an Act of Parliament, and they have had no difficulty in obtaining any number of such Acts from two Houses of their own making as often as they pleased, whether the Government was Liberal or Conservative. (Hear.) It is only in the last three years that they have been forced, to their own great indignation, to grant a temporary respite, chiefly by the 'For the first, see Art. VIII of the Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, in CW, Vol. V, p. 695. a -"DN,DT pittance ^'DN.DT persons

March 1873

Land Tenure Reform [2]

427

public-spirited exertions of Professor Fawcett2 (cheers) and of that very valuable body, the Commons Preservation Society.3 The commons are not the private property of anyone. Their history has been written in several recent books,4 and should be known to every man, woman, and child. There was a time when much of the land of the country was not appropriated, but was open to all the population of the neighbourhood to feed their cattle, and occasionally to grow corn upon it, turn and turn about, without permanent occupancy. When, for the sake of better agriculture, this system had to be given up, the land ought at least to have been fairly portioned out among all who were interested in it. Instead of this, a great part was usurped with a high hand by the powerful landholders, at a time when few dared resist them; another great part has since been filched away by the successors of the same people, in the more civilized method of Enclosure Acts.5 The commons of the present day are what is left. We are willing to condone the past, if they will only leave us the remainder. (Loud cries of No, no.) The private rights that exist in those lands are limited rights. The Lord of the Manor has rights, the principal of which is the exclusive right of killing game. The neighbours have what are called rights of common—that is, rights of pasturage, of wood-cutting, of turf-cutting, and, in general, rights to the spontaneous produce of the soil; and those rights have hitherto been sufficient to prevent the land from being enclosed and cultivated. The question is therefore quite fresh, and open to the judgment of the nation, whether it will suffer these lands to be enclosed and cultivated; and, if at all, for whose benefit? Hitherto, it has been for the benefit of the landlords. The Law Courts hold that none but landholders have rights of common, and that no one else is entitled either to a share of land or to compensation for its being taken caway from thec people. It matters not though every cottager who had a cow, or a pig, or a goose, may, from time immemorial, have turned them out to feed on the common. 2 On 20 April, 1869, Henry Fawcett had moved for a Select Committee on the Inclosure Act (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 195, cols. 1286-7), and the resulting "Report from the Select Committee," 7 July, 1869 (PP, 1868-69, X, 327-505) recommended, as he wished, that the annual Inclosure Bill should always be scrutinized by Parliament (p. 332). 3 For the activities of this body, on whose Executive Committee Mill sat, see its Report of Proceedings, 1868-9 (London: printed Grant, 1869), pp. 5-14. 4 E.g., Charles Isaac Elton (1839-1900), A Treatise on Commons and Waste Lands (London: Wildy, 1868 [1867]); Henry James Sumner Maine (1822-88), VillageCommunities in the East and West (London: Murray, 1871), reviewed by Mill in the Fortnightly Review, n.s. IX (May 1871), 543-6; and Erwin Nasse (1829-90), On the Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages, and Inclosures of the Sixteenth Century in England (in German, 1869), trans. H.A. Ouvry (London: Macmillan, 1871). 5 The General Enclosure Acts, 41 George III, c. 109 (1801), 6 & 7 William IV, c. 115 (1836), and 8 & 9 Victoria, c. 118 (1845). C C

" DN,DT

by other

428

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 155

The Courts are constantly making new law; but they would not make law for that. Yet they could have done so if they liked. They have never had any difficulty in converting custom into law. The bulk of our law consists of customs which have been made law by decisions of the Courts. (Hear, hear.) They could just as easily have decided, had they so pleased, that the whole population had common rights as that the landlords had; but they did not so please. In spite of this, however, the commons are not property for purposes of cultivation; and when Parliament, by a special Act, removes the obstacles to their cultivation, Parliament by so doing creates a new and valuable property which has not yet passed into private hands, and which, retained by the State, would be a source of considerable revenue. If Parliament ^profess d to give this property away gratis, is it to the rich that it should be given? (No!) To create a valuable property for the rich by expelling the poor from that use of the land for pasturage which they enjoyed in practice, though not by legal right, and along with it from the use of the land for healthful recreation, and from the power of wandering over it at will when they have no other place in which to enjoy Nature except dusty roads—can anything be more like Ahab the King's seizure of Naboth's little vineyard,6 or the rich man in the parable, who, with his great flocks and herds, could not be happy without robbing his poor neighbour of his single ewe lamb?7 (Hear, and cheers.) I shall be accused, I suppose, of exciting your passions. (Laughter.) I am not ashamed of the charge. I want to excite your passions. (Cheers.) Without passion we shall never get this great iniquity put an end to. (Hear, hear.) Our Liberal Government is as bad on this subject as the Tories (hear, hear)—perhaps even worse. (Loud cheers.) The passion of the many is needed to conquer the self-interest of the few. (Cheers.) That is the proper use of political passion. Its improper use is when it is directed against persons. Great allowance ought to be made for people who merely go on doing what they and their predecessors have long done, and have never until quite recently been told that it was unjust. Let them learn that, without any hatred of them, we stand here for justice. Once take away their power of doing this wrong, and before long their eyes will be unsealed, and they will see the injustice as clearly as we see it. (Cheers.) The other of the two chief points of our programme—the claim of the State to the unearned increase of rent8—requires rather more explanation, as it is not yet equally familiar, though the time has already come when it is listened to, and it is probably destined to become an article of the creed of advanced reformers. The land of the world—the raw material of the globe—in all prosperous countries constantly increases in value. The landlord need only sit still and let nature work for him; or, to speak truly, not nature, but the labour of other men. 6

I Kings, 21.

7

II Samuel, 12:1-14. 8 Art. IV of the Programme, CW, Vol. V, p. 690. ''-^DN.DT chooses rather

March 1873

Land Tenure Reform [2]

429

(Cheers.) What is it that has produced the prodigiously increased demand for building land, which has created the colossal fortunes of the Grosvenors, the Portmans, the Stanleys, and others of our great families?9 It is the growth of manufactures and the increase of towns. And what has produced that? Your labour and outlay; not that of the landlords. (Cheers.) The same labour and outlay—namely, yours, not theirs—produces a steady increase of demand for agricultural and mining products, causing prices to rise and rents to increase. No other portion of the community has a similar advantage. The labouring classes do not find their wages steadily rising as their numbers increase; and even capital—its interest and profit—instead of increasing, brings a less and less percentage as wealth and population advance. The landlords alone are in possession of a strict monopoly, becoming more and more lucrative whether they do anything or nothing for the soil. (Hear, hear.) This is eof littlee consequence in a country like America, where there is plenty of unused land, waiting for any one who chooses to go and cultivate it; but in an old country like ours, with limited land and a growing population, it is a great and increasing grievance. We want the people of England to say to the landlords, "You are welcome to every increase of rent that you can show to be the effect of anything you have done for the land; but what you get by the mere rise of the price of your commodity compared with others—what you gain by our loss—is not the effect of your exertions, but of ours, and not you (cheers), but we ought to have it." (Loud cheers.) They will say, "But we bought our land as a property increasing in value, and the probable increase was considered in the price." Our answer to that is, "If you are dissatisfied, give up the land (cheers); we will pay you back what you gave for it, and even what you could have sold it for yesterday morning. (No, no, and cheers.) That is all you have a right to; we give you that, and the nation will gain the difference between the present and future value." It does not seem to me possible to contest the justice of this arrangement, provided it can be made to work, but many persons think that it would not work. They say it would be impossible to ascertain the amount of the unearned increase of rent. It would be impossible, if we attempted to cut too close. The amount could not be ascertained within a few pounds. But we do not want to attempt anything impracticable: neither do we wish to be harsh. We are willing to leave an ample margin for mistakes; but we demand the recognition of the principle, that a kind of property which rises in value while other kinds remain stationary or fall, may justly on that account, be subjected to special taxation. When it is notorious that rents have increased, and are increasing, not ^he Grosvenor and Portman estates in London increased enormously in value with the growth of the fashionable areas in the West End; the Stanleys benefited from the industrial development of Lancashire. e e

~ DN,DT

not of so much

430

Public and Parliamentary Speeches

No. 155

only where there has been improvement by the landlord, but where there has been no improvement, or improvement solely by the tenant, a tax which takes from the landlord no more than that increase is within the just rights of the State. It might be necessary to have a periodical valuation of the rental of the country, say once in ten or once in twenty years. The landlords could easily keep a record of their improvements. Let them retain all increase which they could show to be of their own creating, make a fair allowance for any diminution of the value of money, give them the benefit of every doubt, and lay on the remainder as a tax to the State. If the country continues prosperous, this tax would in time produce a considerable revenue, to the great relief of the taxpayers; while any landlord who thought himself harshly dealt with could avail himself of the option of resigning his land on the terms originally offered—namely, at the price he could have obtained for it before the introduction of the new system. (Cheers.) This is our doctrine of the unearned increment, and you may depend on it that the difficulties which people are afraid of would prove, when fairly faced, to be little more than phantoms. The valuation of land for purposes of taxation is the general practice of Europe; a re-valuation is made occasionally everywhere, and periodically in the greater part of British India. It would only remain to have a valuation of improvements, ^but this^ is now acknowledged to be not only practicable, but indispensable, as the basis of a just tenant right. There is nothing a Government can do that does not look frightfully difficult, until we consider how much more difficult things a Government already does. Every attempt to apportion taxation fairly among the different members of the community is as difficult and in its complete perfection as impossible as what we propose. *Itg is far easier than to make a just income-tax, and would not give rise to anything like the same amount of unfairness and fraud. (Hear, hear.) Let us, then, with steady perseverance, continue to spread our principles and we need have no fear that the seed will fall on barren ground.10 (Cheers.) There are many circumstances at the present time to encourage us, and the most encouraging of all, as it is the most unexpected, is the awakening of the agricultural labourers. (Loud cheers.) That most neglected, and, as it ''has hithertoh seemed, most helpless portion of the labouring 'population', has risen up, and has found a voice, which can, and which will, make itself heard by the makers of our laws. (Cheers.) No class has so direct an interest in the reform of the land system as the farm labourers; it is on State lands that they may hope to see the experiment tried, fairly and on a sufficient scale, of the management of the farm by and for the hands that till it. (Cheers.) For the first time, the Land Reformers have the prospect of 10

Cf. Matthew, 13:3-8.

/-y

b&D and that *~*D&D This which we propose *-*+DN '~'DN classes

March 1873

Land Tenure Reform [2]

431

intelligent support from those who would gain more than any one else by their success. The Agricultural Labourers' Union is a most important ally to us (hear, hear); and we, I hope, shall be useful allies to them. l { Already they and we have worked together at several public meetings, and we are working together to-night. But whether there be concerted and organized co-operation or not, whatever is gained by either is a gain to both. We may therefore look forward with full confidence to a rapidly increasing success. (Loud cheers.) [The first resolution condemned the division of common lands among landlords, and opposed the passing of Crown or public lands into private hands, asserting that they should be administered for the general interest and in particular for the labouring classes; it was passed unanimously. A second, opposed to primogeniture, entail, and the system of land transfer, was moved and an amendment in favour of nationalization having failed to obtain a majority in the view of the Chair (though some of its supporters disagreed) was approved. A third resolution, favouring special taxation of any increase of rent not resulting from labour or capital, was carried unanimously. A vote of thanks to the Chair was carried with cheers as the meeting concluded.}

H

The National Agricultural Labourers' Union began to form in 1872 under the leadership of Joseph Arch (1826-1919).

"Poor Ireland" Fun, 28 March, 1868, facing p. 28

APPENDICES

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix A The Manuscripts No. 40. The Westminster Election [2]. Mill-Taylor Collection, II/1/12. It consists of 4 sheets of writing paper, unwatermarked, folded and placed sequentially to make 8 ff., 13.0 x 20.6 cm. Written recto and verso to 7r; 7v and 8r and v blank. Untitled. No. 50. Representation of the People [2]. Harvard University, MS ENG 1105. It consists of 5 sheets (unwatermarked blue French paper) folded to make 10 ff.: ff. 1-4 and 9-10, 19.3 by 24.5 cm.; ff. 5-6, 20.3 by 25.1 cm.; ff. 7-8, 20.3 by 25.5 cm. Untitled, it is written recto only, except for an insertion on 3v. No. 67. The Disturbances in Jamaica. A fragment of the manuscript is in Yale University Library, John Stuart Mill Papers, Box 2, MS #350. It consists of the bottom part of a folio, torn across the top and on the left, 20.4 by 12.2 cm., on unwatermarked blue French paper, untitled and written recto only. "Unimp[ortant]" is written at the bottom of recto and on verso in Helen Taylor's hand, and someone has (correctly) pencilled "[1866]" on the verso. No. 178. Women's Suffrage [1]. Mill-Taylor Collection, Vol. XLI, item 3, ff. 38-47. It consists of 5 sheets (unwatermarked blue French paper), folded to make 10 ff., 20.4 x 26.0 cm. Untitled, it is written recto only, concluding on f. lOr, leaving the bottom 1/4 blank. No. 179. The Education Bill. Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph file A.MS. *49M-85, donated by Mrs. Norman Himes, 1949. It consists of 3 sheets folded to make 6 ff., 20.3 by 25.5 cm., on unwatermarked blue French paper, headed in Mill's hand: "Speech at the meeting of the Education League at St James's Hall, March 25, 1870." Written recto only to 5v, except for insertion on 3v; 6r and v blank. App. F. War and Peace. This fragment is in the Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph file A.MS *49M-85, part of the Himes donation. It consists of 2 sheets, folded to make 4 ff., 20.3 by 25.5 cm., on unwatermarked blue French

436

Appendix A

paper, untitled, written recto only, with only one-half of 2r and two-thirds of 4r covered. Though the fragment is in Mill's hand, on 2r is written in Helen Taylor's hand, "H T. Febr 1871"; in fact the speech is hers.

Appendix B Questions before Committees of the House of Commons (1866, 1868) Mill served on only two Select Committees, those on Metropolitan Local Government (1866) and on Extradition (1868). In the following extracts from the reports of the Committees, Mill's questions are in roman type, the responses in italic; the dates of sittings during which Mill asked questions are given, with the numbers assigned to the questions. An indication is given when Mill began the substantive questioning; in these cases it appears the witnesses were "his." Long responses to Mill's questions are summarized in italics within square brackets. Discontinuities in Mill's questioning are signalled by line spaces followed where necessary by linking summaries in italics within square brackets. In both these kinds of summary, the only footnotes are those directly pertinent to Mill's questions. Because answers often seem to stray from the point, some responses will seem at least odd; the summaries attempt to keep as close as possible to the apparent intent of the questions. The original numbers of the questions are retained to simplify reference to PP. Though some questions are more properly assertions, the marks of interrogation are retained to preserve the form.

i. SELECT COMMITTEE ON METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT "First Report from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, etc.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix" (16 Apr., 1866),PP, 1866,XIII, 171-315;"SecondReport.. ."(30July, 1866),ibid.,317-628.The First Report covers the Committee's meetings on 9, 12, 15, 19, and 22 March, and 12 and 16 April. (Mill was absent from the first of these, at which no evidence was taken.) The Second Report covers the Committee's meetings on 23 and 26 April, 10, 14 (no quorum, Mill absent), and 28 May, 4, 7 (no quorum, Mill present), 11,14,18,25, and 28 June, and 5, 9, 16, 19 (no quorum, Mill absent), 23, 26, and 29 July. Except as indicated, Mill attended all the sessions. FIRST REPORT 12 March, 1866

Sir John Thwaites [The examination of Thwaites, the first witness, was begun by the Chairman, Acton Smee Ayrton, who opened in the traditional way by establishing the credentials of the witness and his view of the main issues. The questioning turned

438

Appendix B

to the funding of the Board of Works generally, and then specifically to the funding of the main drainage system, it being ascertained that the expenditures on the main drains did not include costs of the new Thames Embankment.] 56. The Embankment itself was constructed from a fund perfectly independent of the 3d. rate?—Entirely. 57. What is the degree of progress which has been made in the Low Level Sewer; is it only that part connected with the embankment which has not yet been commenced, and is all the rest of the work in a tolerable degree of progress?—Yes. [Questioning continued on the Embankment, with reference to the limited authority and resources of the Board. ] 231. If I understand you aright there is a very small portion of the land within the embankment which will be under the control of your Board, and a very little of it upon which you can build, or of which you can direct the disposal?—Yes. 232. How much of the ground within the embankment have you power over?—For building purposes, I do not think that we have power over any. Any spare land is to be planted and laid out ornamentally, for the benefit of the public. 233. The Duke of Buccleuch,1 and any one else to whom the land has been given up, have the power of building upon the land which has been given up to them?—/ do not think that there is any restriction. It is Crown property. We have to give up the land, and, I suppose, build the wall and lengthen the land in each case up to the ground to be reclaimed. 234. If the Duke of Buccleuch chooses to build upon the property given up to him, he can do so?—It may be determined by the Crown, of which I know nothing. 235. Then the question is whether the Crown, if they wish to lay it out for pleasure ground for public resort, must pay to the Duke of Buccleuch the value of it for building ground or otherwise?—The Duke of Buccleuch is a lessee; the Crown is the ground landlord. 236. Will this land which is given up to the lessees come within the lease; will they hold it on the same conditions as those upon which they hold the other land, or will they hold it as absolute property?—/ should think that they will hold it upon similar conditions. 237. Then it will depend upon the provisions of their leases, whether the Crown will require them to give it up without paying the full value of it as building land?—/ am unable to speak with certainty upon that point; that will be governed by the agreement with the Crown. 238. The Dukes of Northumberland and Norfolk2 are not lessees; they are proprietors, and therefore I presume that they will be proprietors of the land which 'Walter Francis Scott (1806-84), 5th Duke of Buccleuch. George Percy (1778-1867), 5th Duke of Northumberland, and Henry Fitzalan-Howard (1847-1917), 15th Duke of Norfolk. 2

Metropolitan Local Government

439

you give up to them?—We give up no land; we are prohibited from taking any land or property belonging to any of the proprietors named, but the land in front will become dedicated to the public and will not belong to the adjoining owners; it will be taken by the Board. 239. As respects your prolonging Norfolk-street and other streets, does it extend to more than the roadway; have you power to prolong them as streets with houses on both sides?—No. 15 March John Thwaites, continued [ Questioning turned to the powers of the Board in relation to Crown property. ] 474. Looking at the property in the metropolis of this country, which is in the hands of the Crown, and which it is admitted is only to be adminstered by the Crown for the public benefit, do you think that it should be regarded by the Crown as being held for one purpose only, namely, to get the greatest amount of money from taxes, or for the general purpose of public improvement?—That is rather a question for Parliament than for our Board. I affirm with the greatest confidence that there should be no distinction between the property of the Crown and the property of private individuals. The tendency of this special legislation, is that you are unable to take any of the property without the consent of the Crown. If the effect of the improvement should be to improve very largely the property, the Crown may interpose, and say, "You shall take just so much as you require for the roadway, but we will hold all the advantages and the prof it," and thus the Crown will realize an advantage which a private individual will not; and that is the mischief which we find in the working of the principle. 475. So that the Crown, as trustee of the nation for public purposes, has a greater advantage than a private owner in a matter of public improvement, whereas it ought rather to have less?—// ought not to have more; that is quite clear. [A number of issues having been raised, Mill started a new series of questions on whether property taxes should fall on occupier or owner. ] 661.1 presume that the occupiers of rated property in the metropolis mostly hold that property on the usual leases of 7, 14, or 21 years?—As a rule, no doubt, some such agreement exists. 662. And, I fancy, that in most cases they hold under the covenants that all taxation, even new taxation, and even what are considered as landlord's taxes, shall be borne by the occupier?—Yes. 663. So that during the currency of those leases any new local rate falls upon the occupier?—Yes. 664. How would it be after the expiration of those leases; in your opinion, would the burthen then be thrown upon the owners of the houses?—Yes; unless the obligation were renewed by fresh covenants with the fresh tenants.

440

Appendix B

665. As regards the burthens which now fall upon the occupier during the currency of his lease, do you not think that at the expiration of the lease, in the grant of a new lease these burthens would be taken into consideration in fixing the rent, so that the subsequent rent of that property would be reduced to the extent of the increased burthens?—It is so in theory, but it is not so in practice. 666. How do you account for that?—[After citing an example of unequal agreements for house rentals, Thwaites concluded:] while it appears in theory to be reasonable that the landlord would reduce the rents in proportion to the obligation which he casts upon the tenant, it is not so in practice, the tenant undertakes to bear those burthens, and in point of fact pays those rates out of that which is part of his own profit, and he does not get a proportionate reduction, in consequence of the obligations under which he places himself by these covenants. 667. But do you not think that although particular tenants neglect the needful care of their own interests in that respect, yet upon the whole, when a person takes a lease of certain premises, he considers what he can afford to pay, or what it is to his advantage to pay, and that if he is of opinion that he is more heavily burthened than he would be in another part of the town, he will require to pay less rent than he might be content to pay if he lived elsewhere?—The question is not what he can reasonably afford to pay, but what property of the same capacity, and the same value willfetch; he may be paying out of what should be his accumulating income. 668. If he is considering what house or premises he shall rent, and is not taking into account the inconvenience of leaving the premises which he already occupies, but is taking premises for the first time, will he not calculate the whole of the annual cost devolving upon him from taking those premises; and will he not, if the rates are heavier, require that the rent shall be in the same proportion lower?—It is not so much a question of individual calculation, as to whether the house will serve the person's purpose; that consideration may involve several elements; first, it may be convenient for his trade and his connection, and a variety of matters may induce him to give more than the market value of the house; but in order to determine the question, we must consider the fair value of the house for the purpose of ascertaining the natural rent of the house. 669. Some persons in some businesses may be obliged to live in a particular neighbourhood, and therefore may not have it in their power to relieve themselves from heavy rates by taking any other house; is that your meaning?—That frequently occurs, and as the result you have an unnatural rent imposed upon the party, because he is unable, without injury to his business or profession, to remove from that particular locality, and hence occasionally landlords take advantage of tenants under those circumstances, and charge an unnatural rent; that is to say, a rent which the premises themselves would not command in the ordinary market. 670. Supposing that the rates were suddenly reduced in that neighbourhood, would not the landlord be able to take the same advantage of the conveniences which the situation of the premises affords to a person in that particular business,

Metropolitan Local Government

441

or to persons in business in general, and thus add to the rent the amount which would be saved by the reduction of the rates?—/ am not able to answer that question. 671. Even in those parishes which are most heavily rated, is it not the fact that rent is constantly rising in the same manner as elsewhere; and that after the expiration of any lease there is every chance that the proprietor of a house in those parishes will be able to obtain a higher rent for it than he has obtained before?—[After agreeing that the general increase in value would benefit the owner, Thwaites argued that an agreement by a tenant to pay the sewer rate in 1854 would entail continuing to pay at an increased amount because that rate had come to include the improvement, formation, and widening of streets, and concluded by asking:] why should this large proprietor, who has entered into a bargain with his tenant in 1854, have all those reversionary advantages without contributing one shilling towards the improvement which has been carried out? 672. Is it not your opinion, that notwithstanding any amount which might be laid upon the occupiers for the purpose of defraying the expense of any probable amount of metropolitan improvement, the rental of that property progressively rises as it does elsewhere?—No doubt; and it sometimes occurs that even a higher rent is demanded for a lease, because the property is tied up, and the proprietor is deprived of the gradual improvement of the property, supposing that he anticipates such an improvement; but immediately the property is released from that obligation, we assume that he realises the fair market value of that property. 673. So that notwithstanding the great inequality of rates in regard to parts of the metropolis, even in those parts where the rates are heavy, the value of the property is still rising, quite independently of any outlay of the proprietors themselves, but merely from the general increase in the value of property in the metropolis?—It fluctuates from time to time. I believe that just now property is increasing in value, but there are times when the reverse is the case, and when property is depressed. 674. Is not the general tendency of the improvements which are being made, to increase the value of property?—No doubt the tendency in the metropolis is in that direction, and especially in prosperous times the result would be felt in a demand for property; and there is a greater demand for property. 675. So that although an injury results from the amount of the rating in particular parts of the metropolis, and although during the existence of the leases the occupiers suffer because of the inequality of the rating, yet the owners of the property in those heavily-rated districts gain an advantage, not as the result of their own exertions, but from the general circumstances of society; but it does not accrue to them quite so fast as it does in other districts, and although the value of property is increasing everywhere, yet it does not increase so rapidly as in the districts which are low rated; is not that the amount of the grievance?—No; I do not see how that affects the question which I have raised. You have a general increased value of property arising from a variety of causes; first, the increase of population,

442

Appendix B

and secondly the prosperous condition of trade; all these things have a tendency to drive up the value of property, and the reverse circumstances have a tendency to depress it; but that does not touch the real question. 676. It is understood that this does not affect the question of the incidence of the rate on the occupiers during the currency of leases, and that during this time any new burthen imposed for metropolitan improvement falls very unequally on different parts of the metropolis—that is admitted; but after the leases have expired, supposing that the burthen then comes upon the landlords, it of course falls on them very unequally, but still the amount of what they really suffer is not a loss, but merely that they do not gain quite so much from the progress of society as landlords in other parts?—But we assume, as a starting-point, that we have an equality of assessment. 671. I am referring to the state of things under the present system?—/ have already stated, and I repeat that statement, that I believe that the metropolis is not properly assessed, and that great inequality exists. I propose that that should be set right by some machinery, but when set right, there would still be the difficulty left which I have named. 678. To pass to another subject, namely, the manner in which the local disbursements of Paris are regulated, is it not the fact that in the other towns of France and in the Departments also, with the exception of Paris, the municipalities or the departments are authorised to raise, for municipal or departmental purposes, what are called centimes additional; so much per cent, on the amount of the four direct contributions which are raised for Imperial purposes in those muncipalities or departments?—/ believe so. 679. And a provision is included in the annual Budget of the State which every year authorises the municipalities to raise, for municipal purposes, a certain per-centage and no more, upon the amount of the direct taxes of the municipality? —/ believe so. 680. Therefore the advantage which Paris has in receiving a proportion of the Imperial taxation for municipal purposes, is to a certain extent shared by the whole of France?—/ believe so. 19 March John Thwaites, continued [The questioning turned to local subventions by the central government, and its liability to local taxation.} 927. Are you aware that by the French law, national property, and crown property especially, of all sorts, is exempt from taxation to the national account, but is subject to all local taxation?3—/ so understand it. 3

The legislation covering taxation, following on the crown lands' becoming national property, is found in Instruction de 1'Assemblee nationale sur la contribution fonciere

Metropolitan Local Government

443

928. Do you not think that that is a just distinction?—/ think that it is; if that property were not so exempted, it would be merely receiving with one hand and paying with the other. Thomas Henry Fry4 [Fry's opinion was sought on the increased value of property bought (and some re-sold) by the Coperation for the Holborn improvements. He referred to the Corporation's having based the increase in re-sale values on a higher estimate than that in the purchase prices. ] 985. It was calculated upon a continuously progressive rise in the value of the property?—It has been so up to the present time; where it is to stop, of course I cannot say. William Corrie5 [Questioning centred on the right of the City of London to expend monies raised by taxation for whatever purposes it wished.] 1124. Is it your theory that a public body can be authorised to levy a tax, whether local or general, for their own benefit?—The Corporation of the City of London have carried on various works from time to time, and they have applied this money not for their own purposes, but for public purposes. 1125. Do you think that it can be applied to any but public purposes?—As a lawyer, I hold that the Corporation, if they are disposed so to do, can apply it as they please. There is nothing to prevent them from doing it, but it never has been done. 22 March, 1866 Benjamin Scott6 [The issue of expenditure by the City of its coal tax (4d. per ton), raised during the examination of Corrie, again occupied the Committee's attention.] 1494. Was that duty of 4d, in the Port of London ever levied by the Crown for its own benefit?—The Charter of James recites that the Corporation had always possessed the right, and confirms the grant of the 4d. duty.7 Therefore, the charter (22 and 23 Nov., 1790), Lois, et actes du gouvernement, II, 183-221; Loi relative aux domaines nationaux, aux concessions et echanges qui ont etc fails, et aux apanages (1 Dec., 1790), ibid., 163-7 3; and Loi concernant la contribution fonciere(l Dec., 1790), ibid., 178-83. 4 Member of the Common Council of the City of London, and Chairman of the Holborn Valley Improvement Committee. 5 William Corrie (1806-81), solicitor and barrister, Remembrancer of the City of London from 1864. 6 Benjamin Scott (1814-92), Chamberlain of the City of London from 1858. 7 "Quo Warranto—3 James I" (20 Aug., 1605), App. 3 to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Taxation (1861).

444

Appendix B

assumes that the Crown had an ancient right from time immemorial, and that it had been anciently granted to the City, and it confirms it in the reign of James I, when there had been some dispute as to the rights of the City and the Crown. 1495. But the Crown had never exercised the right for its own benefit, had it?—Not within recent or modern times; but the grant assumes that it was a right of the Crown in ancient times. I have the words of the charter here, if the Committee like to see them. 1496.1 presume that the Crown claimed a right to levy taxes at that time without the consent of Parliament?—/ think that at that time the Crown did exercise its powers in a way in which they would not be exercised now; but it is a right of property acquired in those times, like all other property which has come down from those times. 1497. So that the Crown claimed a general right of property in a tax, of which right of property it had never had the beneficial exercise within the memory of man?—Not within recent times. 1498. So that it was by construction of a general prerogative of the Crown, that it was supposed that what the Crown conceded or confirmed to the Corporation had previously to that belonged to the Crown?—Yes; I should state that Charles II seized the charter, and subsequently exercised the right himself for several years; but that an Act of Parliament was passed confirming all those charters to the City in the reign of William and Mary, and stating that the City ought not to have been interrupted in the enjoyment of those rights.8 SECOND REPORT

23 April James Beal9 [After the Chairman had established Beal's credentials, the questioning was begun by Mill, who undoubtedly had arranged that Beal be a witness.] 1764. How long have you been a member of St. James's vestry?—With a brief exception, since the passing of Sir Benjamin Hall's Act, the Metropolis Local Management Act, in 7&55.10 1765.1 think the Metropolis Local Management Act transferred to the vestries the separate powers vested in the separate local boards previously to that time?—It did. 8

2 William and Mary, Sess. 1, c. 8 (1689). James Beal (1829-91), land agent and auctioneer, and one of Mill's most active political supporters. l6 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120. Sects. 67-134 outline the vestries' powers. Benjamin Hall (1802-67), later Lord Llanover, introduced the Act in the Commons. Shortly thereafter he became Chief Commissioner of Works for London. 9

Metropolitan Local Government

445

1766. You have carefully watched the operation of the Act in the vestry of which you are a member?—/ have. 1767. How do you consider it has been carried out?—As a whole, very imperfectly on the part of the elected authorities. If tested on the question of their works, under the head of sewage, roads, and paving, I think the sewage works entrusted to the vestries not under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works will be found to be in a most defective state; and I believe their roads and paving to be equally defective. 1779. Will you give a brief summary of the powers of local government which are vested in the vestries under the Metropolis Local Management Act; in short, the powers that they do actually exercise?—To them is entrusted the lighting, paving, and cleansing of the streets, the local sewerage, certain powers under the Diseases Prevention Act, and the Metropolitan Gas Act of 1860, and the Adulteration of Food Act, some powers under the Common Lodging House Act, and the general sanitary regulations of the district committed to their care.11 1780. And the members of the vestry are selected by the ratepayers, are they not?—Yes. 1781. Are they elected by plural voting or by single votes?—Single votes. 1782. Of what class of persons do vestries generally, in your experience, consist; are they different in different parishes?—As far as our own is concerned, the majority are small tradesmen, in the back streets of the parish. We are divided into four wards: Church Ward, Pall Mall Ward, Marlborough-street Ward, and Golden-square Ward. In three out of these four wards the members, as a whole, consist of small tradesmen; Church Ward has some five or six leading men of the parish, but the rest are men little known to the great body of the ratepayers. There are 50 vestrymen in our parish. 1783. The number is much larger in some parishes I believe?—Yes; in St. George's it is 120, in Marylebone 120; and their wards are of course more numerous than ours. 1784. There is a great variety, I suppose, in the character of the members of vestries in the different districts of the metropolis?—They vary entirely with the character of the population of the district. 1785. How are these powers, in your experience, generally administered?— Always with too great a regard to economy; efficiency is always sacrificed to economy. If an Act of Parliament requires them to do certain things, it is as a rule avoided. I refer especially to the Sanitary Acts,12 to the Adulteration of Food Act, 11

18 & 19 Victoria, cc. 116 and 121 (1855) (Diseases Prevention); 23 & 24 Victoria, cc. 84 and 125 (1860) (Food and Gas); and 14 & 15 Victoria, c. 28 (1851) (Lodging Houses). 12 Chiefly the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts, 18 & 19 Victoria, cc. 116 and 121.

446

Appendix B

and to the Metropolis Gas Act, in each of which cases the powers entrusted to them have not been carried out. 1786. These are all permissive Acts?—In some sense permissive; but there have been peremptory powers which have not been carried out by the vestries, particularly in relation to the Metropolis Gas Act. 1787. Have the vestries any power in regard to the licensing of publichouses?—They have not; that rests in the first place with the magistrates of petty session, and by appeal to the magistrates in quarter sessions in the county of Middlesex or other metropolitan county. 1788. How is that power exercised?—We had reason to complain some years since that licenses refused by our local magistrates were granted on appeal by the Middlesex magistrates. It was fully gone into in my evidence before the Committee in 1861, in reference to the Argyle Rooms, and one or two other cases I then mentioned.121 Great objection exists on our part to the Middlesex magistrates having that control. We believe it is a matter which, if our local administration were more municipal, should be entrusted to the local administration. 1789. In regard to the local magistracy, the magisterial powers are divided, I believe, between the Middlesex magistrates, and the police magistrates appointed by Government?—The criminal jurisdiction is in the hands of the stipendiary magistrate appointed by Government; the civil jurisdiction, —licensing slaughterhouses, cow-houses, public-houses, and billiard-rooms, is in the hands of the magistrates in petty session, who are appointed, I believe, by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. 1790. These powers you wish to have transferred to a municipal administration for Westminster?—/ should. 1791. Have you any remarks to make on the mode of election to the Metropolitan Board?—/ expressed my opinion in 1861,14 which subsequent experience has confirmed, that the present mode of election is bad, and that instead of being afiltrationfrom the vestry, it should be directfrom the ratepayers. I think when our annual elections take place, the inhabitants should elect their member to the Metropolitan Board at the same time that they elect their members to the vestry. 1792. So that what you wish would be a municipal administration for the different districts of the metropolis separately, and a general administration elected like the others by the ratepayers, for the administration of the affairs which concern the metropolis as a whole?—Yes. My opinion is that the whole of the metropolis should be divided into a series of municipalities, and that these municipalities should be mainly co-extensive with the Parliamentary districts, as 13 See his evidence given to the Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation, PP, 1861, VIE, 139-64, esp. 153. "Ibid.

Metropolitan Local Government

447

proposed in the report of the Commissioners reporting on the Corporation of the City of London, 1854;15 that where Parliamentary districts do not run, districts should be assigned to them; that the local municipality should have the control of all the works and powers now entrusted to the several vestries within those districts; that from these there should be formed a metropolitan council composed of members of the several local municipalities, to whose hands should be entrusted the whole of the work now done by the Metropolitan Board, the whole of the work now done in the metropolis by the magistrates of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, and Essex, much that is done by the City of London, and (although it is perhaps idle to ask it) all that is done by the Commissioners of Police; I think that should be transferred to us as part of the legitimate local powers of the municipality of the metropolis. 1793. In that case, you would transfer to the proposed metropolitan council, some of the powers which are at present exercised by the City Corporation within the jurisdiction?—The City is a county in itself, and I would make the metropolis a county in itself, and all the special powers which, as a county, the City exercises, I would transfer to the general metropolitan council. The control of gaols, lunatic asylums, and courts of justice, being special powers which the City exercises by virtue of its being a county by itself, I would transfer to the general municipality. 1794. Will you briefly recapitulate the powers that you would take from the City and transfer to the metropolitan council?—It would preserve all its own municipal action within its own boundary, but the control of gaols, lunatic asylums, and bridges, wherein it acts as a county by itself, would be transferred to the general municipality; it would be reduced to one of a series or congeries of municipalities in the metropolis. 1795. What would you have done with the fire brigade?—/ would place it under the general metropolitan council, as it has been already placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Board.16 1796. And the water supply, so far as it is a municipal matter, would devolve on the general body?—[After asserting that the gas companies should come under the general municipal council, Beal continued:} As regards water, I think that is a matter purely for municipal action. I think that the Act of 1852,ll has not been carried out by a single vestry, they are too weak to carry it out, and that the companies are too powerful in the interests arrayed against the vestries, and that only a large and powerful corporation can adequately represent the public interest, and protect it in reference to the supply of water. 1797. There is another subject which has excited of late a great deal of attention, namely, legislation with regard to the admission of railways and railway stations 15

See No. 93, n7. By 28 & 29 Victoria, c. 90 (1865). 17 15 & 16 Victoria, c. 84 (1852). 16

448

Appendix B

into the metropolis. That, so far as it was municipal, and not parliamentary, would, I presume, devolve upon the central body?—Clearly. At present we are to a certain extent represented by the Metropolitan Board, on the question of the introduction of railways into the metropolis, but, I think, before they are submitted to Parliament, as a rule, the local authorities should express their opinion definitely, by a special report, like that which the Board of Trade presents to the House, upon the advantages or disadvantages which the lines of railway present in the district which they represent. 1798. The Metropolitan Board of Works would be absorbed into the new general municipality which you propose to create?—Yes, it would be enlarged; it would be elevated; instead of being a semi-municipality, which it is at the present moment, its character and tone would be improved; its area would be the same, but its powers greatly increased. Instead of being a mere Metropolitan Board for certain definite works, it would be a metropolitan council representing the whole metropolis for certain great ends, in which the interests of the whole people are identical. 1799. In all probability, in the first instance, it would be composed in a great degree of those who now compose it, in consequence of the experience they have acquired, and the qualifications they have shown?—Certain members of the Board would be sure to be returned, being men of eminent qualifications, and deservedly enjoying the confidence of their constituents. 1800. So that the plan is not at all brought forward in any spirit of hostility either to the Metropolitan Board or to the City of London?—No, in the interests only of the municipal principle, feeling that the whole metropolis should have the same municipal powers as those which are entrusted to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, and other large towns in the kingdom, of which we are sadly deficient. I may add, that our vestry has always been most anxious upon this question, and has presented memorials to the Government. One of these was printed in the Appendix to the Evidence in 1861,18 and since then, upon all occasions where we could enforce our views, we have expressed them to Government, that it was desirable that municipal powers should be extended to the whole of the metropolis. 1801. Latterly, several other vestries have joined with you in this movement?— Latterly, we had a meeting in consequence of a letter from Sir George Grey to the Metropolitan Board, and we had delegates present from St. James's, Chelsea, Shoreditch, Clerkenwell, Camberwell, St. Pancras, Lambeth, and other parishes in the metropolis; and they agree on a report expressing their views in favour of the idea to which I have directed your attention. That report I propose to hand in.* 18

"Memorial to the Home Secretary, from the Vestry of St. James," App. 1 to "Second Report of the Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation," 321-2. *The Report was delivered in. —Vide Appendix. [" Report of a Meeting of Delegates," in App. 9 of the present Report, 616-18.]

Metropolitan Local Government

449

1802. Do you propose to interfere with any of the powers now exercised by the boards of guardians?—We have not proposed that; but I think that recent experience will support the opinion, that it would be desirable to consolidate the management of the poor as well as the ordinary municipal work under the same organization; that it should be entrusted to the municipality; and that boards of guardians, like vestries, should be consolidated; in fact, removed. They do not, as a general rule, represent the intelligence or property of the constituents, and they are nominated again by vestries; it is a filtration of power, and does not come direct from the ratepayers. 1803.1 presume that you would generally adopt the municipal districts as poor law unions?—/ would. 1804. The boards of guardians have had various powers entrusted to them, chiefly because there were no other authorities to whom they could be entrusted, by virtue of special Acts of Parliament; as in regard to vaccination?19—[The authority lies in the wrong hands; it should be given to the Registrar General. Then it would be possible to have registration and subsequent following-up of every case, until vaccination was completed. ] 1805. You think that vestries are indifferent to making any use of the powers entrusted to them by Act of Parliament, if they find that increased expenditure would be necessary for the purpose?—/ do, and I will give you an instance. Ten years ago, I moved in our vestry for a return of the bore, size, and state of repair of the sewers of the parish. This was duly completed by the surveyor. He has occasionally made urgent reports as to the disgraceful state of the sewage, particularly in reference to Regent-street, a thoroughfare, of course, in which every care should be taken that there should be perfection in all our details; but it now appears that in consequence of past neglect, we must lay out some £20,000 in the repair of our sewers, totally independent of the sewers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in that street. 1806. The vestry is the only existing authority which has any power over those sewers?—In our district, the only existing authority. 1807. So that, properly speaking, that very important part of the police of the districts is entrusted to these numerous and small local bodies?—Yes. 1808. Do you consider that there are any considerable disadvantages attaching to the multitude of these authorities and the great sub-division of jurisdiction?—In Westminster, the disadvantage is greater than in any other portions of the metropolis. We have, with the same population as the parish ofMarylebone (not the borough), collecting the same amount of rates, nine separate jurisdictions, while Marylebone has only one; and it is a special defect in Westminster that such is the case. 1809. There has been a good deal of mention made of the division of St. 19

By 3 & 4 Victoria, c. 29 (1840).

450

Appendix B

James's-street between two parishes, right down the middle?—[There has been no resolution; as a result there are such anomalies as that] in Piccadilly, from Burlington Arcade to the corner of St. James's-street, one side is macadamised, while the other side is pitch-paved. 1815.1 understand that the parish of Marylebone has a population equal to that of Westminster?—All Westminster. 1816. And that parish has only one vestry. The whole local administration of it, therefore, is in the hands of one body?—// is so. 1817. Have you any personal knowledge of the way in which the parish of Marylebone is administered?—/ only refer to it, presuming that it is much the same as the rest of the metropolis, but I allude to it especially as to the cost of government. With our nine jurisdictions we pay £17,462 in salaries, whilst Marylebone pays £7,711 only, each of us collecting in our own rates precisely the same amount of money. 1818. Is it within your knowledge that the local administration in Marylebone is better than that of the separate districts of Westminster; that the Acts of Parliament, for instance, are administered more efficiently, and there is not the same reluctance shown to incur expense for the purpose of carrying them into effect?—No; I presume the same characteristics will be found generally throughout the metropolis. 1819. So that, in your opinion, the extent of a parish, of even the largest parish in the metropolis, is not sufficient to remove the circumstances which cause the imperfect working of the present local administration?—/ do not think size has anything to do with it. I think there is no dignity conferred upon any individual by electing him as a vestryman; consequently, the more respectable or propertied class decline to share its burdens or its honours, if there be any; and, if a total change was made and municipal institutions were introduced, we should have a totally different class of persons seeking the suffrage of the constituencies. 1820. You think that an enlargement of the district from the parish of Marylebone to the Parliamentary district of Marylebone would be sufficient to have that effect?—/ do. 1825. Do the vestries of these separate parishes exercise any municipal administration at all, or do they abdicate entirely in favour of the board they elect?—They simply meet to elect the members of the municipal board. 1826. What are the duties of their vestry clerks?—They are difficult to define; they merely summon the vestry twice or three times a year, but still a vestry clerk exists. 1827. They have powers, I believe, in connection with the parish church?—No; that is a totally different thing. The meeting in the parish church is summoned at Easter to elect churchwardens. It has no other authority. It expires immediately.

Metropolitan Local Government

451

1828. Have they no powers in connection with the Poor Law Administration?— No, that is entrusted to the board of guardians. 1829. So that they exist chiefly as electoral bodies?—Yes; electoral colleges. 1830. It is a kind of second stage of election?—Yes; that only refers to the small vestries, to which you have drawn my attention. 1831. Since there is so much reluctance to incur expense for enforcing Acts of Parliament where there is any option, and even sometimes where there is not; that would naturally make itself most of all felt, or in no case more than in the case of the Sanitary Acts?—Clearly. 1832. What is your opinion as to that?—[In spite of his efforts, no money is voted for measures pertaining to public health, just as none was voted for the equipment necessary under the Metropolis Gas Act. While the Adulteration of Food Act} has been nominally complied with inasmuch as a person has been appointed, [he has not the means to carry out his duties.] Both the Adulteration of Food Act and the Metropolitan Gas Act are dead letters in our parish. 1833. Naturally if local officers of health find that their recommendations are not attended to, they are not so much disposed to make recommendations as they would otherwise be?—No. They checked the zeal of our medical officer, Dr. Lankester,20 whose salary was £200. a-year, by reducing it to £150. after a year or two when they found he was very earnest in his work, since which time he has contented himself with making a fortnightly report, and being less active in the discharge of his duties. 1834. Will you give a general idea of the way in which you would compose the municipal bodies for separate districts of the metropolis?—Do you mean as to the qualifications of the council? 1835. All particulars that would be embodied in a Bill for the purpose, so far as relates to the composition of those bodies?—A Bill has been drafted based entirely upon the Municipal Reform Act general throughout England. It was felt that the first step in the matter was simply to confer upon the metropolis, if Parliament should think fit, municipal powers; that no innovation should be attempted, but that the existing powers should simply be applied to the metropolis. [In reply to a question from the Chair, Beal indicated some of the provisions of the Bill, including the suggestion of boroughs not based on the parliamentary boroughs, such as the merging of Hammersmith, Kensington, Fulham, and Chelsea, and forming a Borough ofBloomsbury out of a portion ofMarylebone, the Parish of St. Pancras, apart ofFinsbury, and all that district running through Holborn up to St. Pancras.]21

20 Edwin Lankester (1814-74), Medical Officer of Health for St. James's parish from 1856. 21 See Schedule A of the Bill.

452

Appendix B

1837. What is the particular reason for interfering with existing boundaries in that case?—Mr. Horton, who will be called, can thoroughly explain it, and the chief of the Statistical Department of the Registrar-General has also offered to give evidence. It was a suggestion in reference to the performance of the duties of his office for the purpose of obtaining accurate statistical details of each and every district of the metropolis. Another suggestion was that the Borough of Tower Hamlets should be divided into two for municipal purposes, called the Borough of Hackney and the Borough of Tower Hamlets, the northern portion of the borough and the southern. 1838. Has it occurred to you to include the West Ham district in the Tower Hamlets previous to the sub-division, so as to make two boroughs out of the Tower Hamlets and the West Ham district combined?—West Ham I think is not within the metropolitan municipal district. 1839. But it is understood that that district wishes to be included?—Powers should be conferred, I think, upon the outlying parishes of the metropolis, enabling them by the vote of their own parish and the adjoining district to form extended municipal districts, as the growth and wealth of the district entitle them to those advantages. 1840. Have you anything further to state about the contents of the proposed Bill?—No, I think not; we propose to adhere exactly to the old idea of a Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council; of course it would be very easy to have suggested alterations or amendments, but we felt that those would come better afterwards, so that we might not be charged with any particular innovation in introducing the matter at present. We felt it was desirable to be conservative in the matter, simply adhering to existing Acts of Parliament, and clothing ourselves with existing powers. 1841. You mean that there would be a mayor and aldermen for each borough?—Yes; just as at Manchester and Salford, and Liverpool and Birkenhead. 1842. Do you think that the existence of mayors and aldermen for the separate districts would have a tendency to induce persons of a higher class than the present vestrymen to accept office?—/ do; I believe it would clothe a man in the district with social distinction, and would be an honourable object of ambition to fill the office of mayor of a large wealthy district like Westminster, Southwark and Marylebone; equally so that he should be an alderman of some district. I think that we should get a class of men to take part in the municipal administration of affairs who at present stand aloof. 1843. Is there not some difference of opinion whether the office of alderman, for instance, in the metropolitan district, would be attractive to a higher class of persons than those who at present serve?—There is some difference of opinion about it, but I have taken every precaution to make inquiries, and to ascertain the views of others. I find that whilst it is looked upon as a sort of fifth wheel of a coach,

Metropolitan Local Government

453

yet it is very desirable to have it as a social distinction, conferring a mark of position to a certain extent upon the man who is elected to the post. 1844. You will perhaps hand the Bill to the Committee?—YesA 1845. This I believe comprises only one-half of the plan, inasmuch as it relates only to the separate municipalities, and says nothing about the proposed general local government of the metropolis, and does not interfere with the existing powers of the Board of Works, but leaves them as they are?—The Metropolitan Board of Works and the City are excluded from the first Bill, the object being simply to clothe the metropolis with municipal powers. 1846. Therefore the remainder of your plan will be embodied in another Bill?—In a second Bill, by which I propose to form a Metropolitan Council. That is to say, extending and enlarging the Metropolitan Board, and giving to it the whole powers of the Middlesex magistrates exercised in the metropolis, and all powers of some 700 or 800 magistrates for the several counties of Kent and Surrey. 1847. Do you expect that it will be ready in time to hand in to the Committee?—Yes, I should think it would be ready within a fortnight.22 1848. Will you give us some idea, as complete as you can, of what would be the contents of the other Bill?—[In addition to perpetuating all the powers of the Metropolitan Board, it would extend them by adding all those not given to minor municipalities, and all those of the Middlesex magistrates over roads, bridges, gaols, and lunatic asylums. In addition it would include courts of justice for the whole metropolis, with a central court trying every case affecting inhabitants of the municipality, and jury selection would be improved.} 1849. Licensing powers you mention that you do not include; I presume you would leave them to the separate municipalities?—To the local municipalities. 1850. The fire brigade, the water supply, and the arrangements as to gas?—/ should leave them all to the general municipality. 1851. Have you consulted with many persons with reference to those plans, do they represent the opinions of any considerable body of persons in the metropolis?—A very large, a very growing mass of persons have expressed their perfect accord in the principles of the scheme, whilst objecting to certain details. For instance, some of the electors ofFinsbury very strongly expressed a difference of opinion as to the propriety of taking out any portion of that borough and creating a new borough for municipal purposes, while we have no such intention as regards parliamentary purposes. It is open to that objection, but we felt that the

tA copy of the Bill was delivered in.—Vide Appendix. ["A Bill Intituled 'An Act for the Establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis,'" in App. 9 of the present Report, 619-28.] 2 It was not printed in the Appendix. The bill for a central municipality that Mill introduced in the House of Commons in 1867 was based partly on Beal's model (see No. 82).

454

Appendix B

scheme suggested had been so thoroughly considered that it was worth while to ventilate it as we have done. 1852. It is no essential part of your plan, even if it should not be proceeded with?—It will not affect the general principle; it is simply a detail. 1853. You were honorary secretary of the Gas Enquiry Committee in I860?23—I was. 1854. That would give you considerable means of judging as to the action of vestries other than your own?—[That position gave him experience of the vestries' failure to comply with the requirements of the resulting Act, and persuaded him that a major change was needed in governance of the metropolis.] 1855. Do you think that the failure of the vestries is most to be ascribed to inattention, or to a false economy, or to the inferior calibre of the persons composing the vestries?—To the inferior calibre of the persons composing the vestries; they agree to resolutions but do not carry them out. I could present you with a series of resolutions, that I proposed to put in force in 1860, which were carried, but from that hour to this nothing whatever has been done in reference to them. It was after the Act had passed, and feeling that we should meet the Companies at once upon the best possible terms, that I endeavoured to secure all the benefits which the Act proposed, and the resolutions were carried, but nothing has been done. 1856. In such numerous bodies as vestries I presume the attendance is not very constant on the part of most members?—No. A little patronage to be given away would secure very large attendances of the vestry, but the discussion of a very important question, unless affecting some local interest, would make no difference whatever. The ordinary attendance would be limited to perhaps 18 or 16, or 15 out of the 60. 1857. Are those 15 or 18 usually the same persons, or do they vary?—Nearly the same persons. There may be slight varieties, so that in the course of the year one man has his name down three or four times, and another five times, but substantially the same persons attend. 1858. So that the powers of the vestry, although nominally exercised by a considerable number, really reside in a comparatively small number, who are not specially responsible for the power which they thus exercise?—That is true. The men who have the most leisure are the men who attend. The busy men, like the tradesmen in Regent-street and Piccadilly, cannot give the time, or they object to the interminable discussions which take place. They go away and take no part in the business. 1859. Probably, then, those members of the vestry in whom the ratepayers would have the most confidence are those who really interfere least in the administration?—That is a fact. 23 See "Report from the Select Committee on the Gas (Metropolis) Bill," PP, 1860, XXI, 29-428. The resulting Act was 22 & 23 Victoria, c. 125.

Metropolitan Local Government

455

1860. You gave evidence before the Committee on Metropolitan Taxation some years ago?—In 1861.24 1861. To the same effect as the present?—Yes. 1862. The main principles of your scheme you started then?—/ did. 1863. Has any change taken place in your views since?—/ have seen no reason to change my opinions. 1864. Naturally your scheme is more matured?—Yes; my opinion has grown, and it has become matured in my mind as a thing I think essential to the government of London. 1865. Turning to the subject of the Railway Bills, how do you consider that the vestries on the one hand, and the Metropolitan Board on the other, carry out that part of their duties which relate to Railway Bills?—[The moot question as to their right to use rates for the employment of counsel to represent municipal interests concerning railways should be resolved, so that London could do what Liverpool and Manchester already can do.] 1866. In most questions vestries could not be expected to take an enlarged view of the subject. For instance, with regard to Metropolitan Railways where the interest of the metropolis has to be considered, or at any rate a large portion of it. But if there were a general metropolitan Board and municipality for the whole metropolis, you would say that all railway schemes affecting the metropolis should be regularly reported on by that Board before they could be introduced into Parliament?—{The Metropolitan Board or Council should have the authority necessary to care for the general interests of the populace.] 1867. What are the advantages, in a financial point of view, that you think would arise from the consolidation of the present small division into a large one?—Take the illustration which I have given of the salaries in Marylebone with one local action, and those in Westminster, with several, and the enormous extra expense in Westminster compared with Marylebone, my belief is, a large saving in expenditure would result from the consolidation of the several vestries in the metropolis. A great reduction in salaries; and, I believe, an improved system of collection of rates could be inaugurated if greater power were exercised in the matter. 1868. Is there not a large portion of the business of local administration anywhere, especially in so great a body as a metropolis, which requires individual responsibility and which can only be done effectually by paid officers, who, therefore, can only be expected to do it over a considerable district, because it is impossible to pay properly qualified officers for small districts?—That is one of the important points on which I think large advantages would accrue to the whole metropolis by the proposed scheme. For instance, we pay our surveyor £200 a year for a small district, and give him the right to practice on his own account. But 24

Seenl3.

456

Appendix B

if he had a large district we could afford to elect a much more eminent man; I do not say one who is more qualified to the performance of his duties, but one having a larger reputation, and in whom greater public confidence would be placed. 1869. Do you not think that the function of municipal bodies, whether called vestries or on a larger scale, is similar rather to that of Parliament in the general administration, than that of the Ministers of the Crown, and that the local administration should consist of a popular body, which is elected, and paid officers, who should be nominated, but for whom the money should be supplied and the salaries voted entirely by the representative body? Is not that your opinion?—/ believe that is the perfection of municipal government. 1870. And, in the nature of the case, that can only be obtained when the body that nominates and the constituency that pays those officers are on rather a large scale?—Yes. 1871. Extending over a wide area?—The bill which has been drawn up refers to a considerable number of other Acts which give separate powers to local bodies, all of which are proposed to be exercised by the new municipalities. 1872.1 presume you have already given in substance all the knowledge we need have of the contents of those Acts?—/ think we give in a marginal schedule every Act proposed to be incorporated, commencing with the Municipal Reform Act of 1835, the 5 & 6 William IV, including all the amendments of that Act. In reference to granting licenses to innkeepers and so on, we recite the other licensing Acts and incorporate them where requisite. As regards the powers of the vestries, the Act simply recites the 18 & 19 Victoria, the Metropolis Local Management Act, and all the amendments of that Act. We merely take the powers which we have; only plus that we give to the municipality the common law powers which a municipality exercises for the good of a large district. [The questioning turned to the proper and present qualifications of municipal representatives. ] 2006. Does it often happen that a person whose qualification is derived from a house which is let out in lodgings is elected as a vestryman?—Not often; I believe, as a rule, they occupy the houses for which they are rated. [The Chair raised the question of changing the arrangements for commissions of the peace.] 2050. The powers of the justice of the peace are of two kinds, judicial and administrative. Is there any reason, when the proposed municipalities are constituted, why the administrative powers which now fall on the justices of the peace should not entirely devolve on the corporation; is there any reason why the two functions should not be separated?—The suggestion is that they should be separated, giving the administrative powers to the Metropolitan General Council,

Metropolitan Local Government

457

and the judicial to the stipendiary magistrates or the magistrates for the peace nominated to the district. 2051. So that everything relating to licensing and other administrative business now done by magistrates, also voting for the county rates, would devolve on the bodies that would represent the metropolis?—The county rate would go, I presume, to the metropolitan council, and the question of licenses would go to the borough justices. 2052. So that there would only remain judicial powers to be exercised by the magistrates?—Only judicial powers. 2053. Would it be at all necessary to have any other power for that purpose than that which is already exercised, with some extension, if necessary, by the Central Criminal Court; or does the Central Criminal Court not descend low enough?—In the second bill we should suggest modifications, but that would be the main court, the court virtually for the metropolis. 2054. I believe the court now comprehends, besides two of Her Majesty's judges, a recorder and magistrates in the commission of the peace?—Yes. 2055. That function would be reserved for the justices of the peace in the new local bodies?—Yes. 2056. To exercise judicial powers, as now, in conjunction with the two judges and the recorder?—Clearly. 2057. And the duties at present exercised, for instance, by the sessions at Clerkenwell would cease?—They would cease. 2058. So far as regards the metropolis?—Yes; that is a part of theJunction of the Middlesex magistrates within the metropolis with which we are finding fault. [The Chair began a series of questions about the savings in costs of collecting rates expected in the City of Westminster through the centralization thatBeal was advocating; the exchange then turned to the probability of more lavish expenditures if those elected in Westminster began to behave like the mayor and aldermen of the City of London, which had great resources not deriving from rates.] 2076. If anybody would make a present of great Irish estates to the Corporation of Westminster, I suppose there would be no objection to their giving grand dinners on the 9th of November25 or some other day?—Just so; or if we had the estates of the Corporation of London handed over to us.26 [The questioning settled on the disproportionate number of vestrymen of a 25

The Lord Mayor's Day, marked by a banquet and a procession to Westminster in a gilded coach. 26 At Q. 2083-4 it was pointed out that the Corporation of London received no income from the Irish estates.

458

Appendix B

superior class willing to serve in St. George's, Hanover Square, as compared to St. James's. Beal affirmed that the difference reflected the social composition of the areas.] 2099. Do we understand that in Marylebone also there are a greater number than the average of persons of superior position willing to serve in the vestry?—Not to the same extent as in St. George's; St. George's is a great exception to the metropolis, the superior class forming a good proportion of the whole vestry. [Beal affirmed strongly that party politics had no bearing on the local elections, and would not have if they were, as he wished, held annually.] 2111. Is it not understood that a number of the old Corporation have a considerable amount of patronage vested in them, and the administration of a good many charities, by means of which it is understood that the circumstance of Liberals or Conservatives being in the Corporation may give them influence which may be exercised in the election of Members of Parliament?—/ have no actual knowledge of it, but I am perfectly aware that it is so, as a matter of general report and information; that large funds are at the disposal of members of a corporation, and that that circumstance does materially influence the result of an election. 2112. Is it understood that that is the reason why the elections of municipal councils in the provinces often assume a political character?—/ do not know that it so largely influences them as to be the main element; there are errors, no doubt, which crop up out of that system of doling out relief to partisans. I think it is very objectionable, but I do not think it mainly influences the contest. 2113. In any case, the municipalities would not have patronage or powers of that description, and therefore to that extent there would not be the same motive to introduce political feelings into the municipal elections?—It would exist only to a minor extent; in most parishes in the metropolis we have charities administered by the vestrymen, and these would be assigned to the municipality. We have in our parish, for instance, a fund which we distribute yearly at Christmas to 20 decayed tradespeople, £15 each, and matters of that sort, but certainly not to the extent I have heard of in some provincial towns. 2114. If necessary, that patronage could be left with the vestries, could it not?—/ do not think it would be desirable; I think we should hand it over to the municipalities; possibly they could suggest some better mode of administration. 2115. Or the Charity Commissioners?27—Yes. [The Chair raised the issue of competing "dignity" between the local and central authorities under Seal's scheme. Beal having affirmed that the metropolitan would have more dignity, the Chair asked how that could be so if, say, the 27

Appointed under the Charitable Trusts Act (1853) to supervise charities and inspect their accounts.

Metropolitan Local Government

459

Duke ofBuccleuch were Mayor of Westminster. Beat replied that his being a duke would not add to his greatness as mayor. ] 2126. Would not the Duke of Buccleuch, or any other person of his position, rather seek to be a member of the central than the local board?—/ think so. [After looking at the analogy of the City of London and its wards with the proposed arrangements, the Chair asked (Q 2142) whether the central council "should have a very large and predominant influence and power over the districts." Beal replied that it "would necessarily have a predominant influence, but not legislative; each of the municipalities would preserve its local power intact. . . ."] 2143. Do you not think that very considerable, or perhaps the greater part of the duties of local municipalities would consist in managing details in matters of which the principles would be laid down by the central body?—No; I think the principle would be that the local bodies would be simply attached to and interested in local details; and that the general body would have, upon larger lines, as it were, the same duties to perform. I think the greater body would be an example to the lesser. I think if we found that they had higher administrative ability, and gave greater attention to details, we should be constantly learning from them. 2144. To explain what I mean; assume that the general drainage of the metropolis, the arterial drainage, would be under the management of the central body, do you think that the local sewers like those which the vestries manage now, and which would necessarily be in connection with the general system, ought to be managed exclusively by the local bodies without any authority exercised by the central body over them?—No, I think that upon all occasions, in order to have a unity of system as to drainage, any detail about to be carried out by the local administration should be submitted to the administration in chief. 2145. Would not that apply also in a great degree to such questions as gas and water supply?—That I would leave to the chief municipality only, not to the district. 26 April William Farr2* 2163. You assisted the Registrar General in taking the census of great Britain in 1851, and the census of England and Wales in 1861?29—/ did. 2164. You had occasion to observe the multiplicity of territorial sub-divisions in the metropolis, made without any reference to one another?—/ did. 2165. What is your opinion on the consequences of that; is it attended with inconveniences?—[The massive difficulties were commented on in their Census 28 William Fair (1807-83), a medical doctor, superintendent of statistics in the Registrar General's office from 1838 and a pioneer statistician. 29 For their reports seePP, 1852-53, LXXXV, 9-98, and 1863, LIII, 1-89.

460

Appendix B

Report to the Secretary of State, in which they called attention to the great benefits to be anticipated from a uniform system of divisions.] 2166. In regard to the metropolis especially?—That holds especially with regard to the metropolis; the sub-divisions of the metropolis are shown clearly in Mr. Morton's interesting pamphlet;30 they are as inconvenient as any that we met with in any part of the country; I believe their inconveniences are felt more perhaps in these large cities than they are in the country. 2167. The divisions being so numerous, of course very few of them coincide with any historical boundary?—Very few; they are based chiefly on the parishes, if we except the City of London and the City of Westminster; the parishes round the City of London and the City of Westminster grew up and became populous, and no notice seems to have been taken of that great fact, which has raised the population from 100,000 to 3,000,000; so that London is left, as regards its local government, almost in the state in which it was when all the parishes round the City consisted of a few scattered houses. 2168. When anything new has to be done, a new division is made for that separate purpose only, instead of one division that would serve for all purposes?—That appears to be the case; in every new Act of Parliament the thing to be done is looked at without any reference to the other things done or to the convenience of the general administration of the metropolis. 2169. What do you consider to be the conveniences and inconveniences of the present variety of boundaries in London?—[The only convenience is that the different bodies who make divisions for special purposes presumably have those purposes served. The many inconveniences deriving from not being able to base statistical analysis on comparable bases may be seen in the frustrated attempts to study the relations of morality and poverty, and disease and crime.] 2170. Do any of these inconveniences relate particularly to the municipal administration of the metropolis; would it be possible to divide the metropolis in a convenient manner for statistical purposes without dividing it in the same manner for municipal?—It appears to me thatfor administrative purposes it would be very desirable to arrange the metropolis in a certain number of divisions, which would be convenient for administration, so that you might be able to employ competent persons to discharge the various offices that the municipality might wish to see filled. 2171. So that the facts wanted for statistical purposes would be accessible to officers within the same boundaries within which they were wanted for administrative purposes?—Certainly. 2172. It would be convenient that the municipal divisions should be such as 30 George Horton, a clerk in the General Register Office (questioned at 2443 ff.), had written a pamphlet entitled Municipal Government of the Metropolis (London: Hardwicke, 1865).

Metropolitan Local Government

461

would be most convenient for statistical purposes also?—It is very desirable for administrative purposes that you should thoroughly understand the constitution, wants, and condition of the district; and unless you make the divisions coincide, that appears to me to be impossible. 2173. Do you think that the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries should be co-extensive?—/ do. It appears to me to be an old part of our constitution, that the different bodies associated for common purposes should also be associated for the purpose of sending Members to represent them in Parliament. 2174. Do you think that the boundaries of the present Parliamentary districts would be those most convenient for municipal and statistical purposes, or that they would require modification?—They would require extensive modification all through the country. Since the Reform Bill great changes have taken place in the population of the country. Nearly all our large towns, and that is especially true of London, have had great accessions of population, which have been deposited irregularly around their Parliamentary area. 2175. And that is no less true of the metropolis than of other towns?—It is especially true of the metropolis. 2176. That is, supposing Parliament were to adopt boundaries for municipal and statistical purposes that did not exactly coincide with the present Parliamentary boundaries, you think that the Parliamentary districts should be modified so as to correspond with them?—// strikes me that would be convenient and proper, and quite in conformity with the general principles of the constitution of the country. 2111. In the Act for the local management of the metropolis, called "Lord Llanover's Act," these different considerations were not regarded at all?—Lord Llanover, I think, proceeded on the principle of maintaining the existing organisation and boundaries of the metropolis. That was essentially a parochial organisation. It originated as a parochial organisation, and it is not, in my opinion, fit for all the great purposes of municipal government. Lord Llanover, I suppose, adopted that basis because it existed at that time, and it would have been probably rather difficult to alter it. 2178. In what respects do you think that the practical administration of the metropolis is unfavourably affected by this want of organisation as to the boundaries of the different authorities?—That is a question which I have not fully considered; so that my opinion, I fear, would be of little importance; but, looking at it on general principles, and with the knowledge I have of the general divisions of this country and of other countries, I should say if you divide London, as Mr. Horton has proposed in his pamphlet, into 10 or 11 great divisions, and make those divisions municipalities, and endow them with all the powers which a municipal organisation possesses in the large boroughs of the country, you would get a much better administrative organisation than exists now. 2179. In what respect do you think it would be better; that the municipal authority would be more conveniently exercised, or that the municipal bodies

462

Appendix B

would be better composed?—It appears to me that the municipal bodies would be better composed, and have a better organisation for the execution of municipal duties; they would be able to appoint and pay competent persons to discharge the several duties required, such as surveyors, health officers, and the various officers that are required in municipal boroughs. The present multiplicity of the districts of the metropolis, many of them obscure and never heard of, withdraws them almost entirely from public observation. What a man does in the vestry inBermondsey, or Stepney, or some of the other districts of the metropolis, is never heard of; so that there is really no responsibility to the great body of the metropolis; and in consequence our streets, and other things thatfall within our observation, are in a very disgraceful state. 2180. Are you able to speak of the different departments of the administration of the metropolis at present, as to the imperfections of any of them?—/ would rather not pretend to do that. I think I should not be able to give the Committee any information on that subject so valuable as many other gentlemen could give, who will no doubt appear before it. I merely speak to the general facts. 2181. You have a favourable opinion of Mr. Horton's plan, contained in his pamphlet, for the redivision and re-organisation of the administration of the metropolis?31—I might mention that when Mr. Horton first placed his pamphlet in my hands I read it carefully through, and was very much struck with it. It preserves the old historical traditions of the metropolis contained in the City of London and the City of Westminster as they stood in the history of the country; and it suggests one way, at any rate, in which the rest of the metropolis might be organised and brought into conformity with these old existing portions. 2182. Do you think that there should be one municipality for the whole metropolis, or that there should be separate municipalities for the different parts?—[One, as in Paris, no matter what it is called, is needed for such necessarily coordinated measures as drainage.} 2183. Then you would propose, as Mr. Horton does, that there should be municipalities for the different districts of the metropolis, which should take charge of those duties which are peculiar to the districts, and also of that part of the general duties which cannot conveniently be discharged by the Central Board, as in the case of these subordinate sewers which, as you have observed, are necessary to the utility of the greater sewers?—That appears to me to be a convenient arrangement. These organisations would naturally take the place of the present district boards, and I think would discharge the duties which devolve on those boards much more effectively. 2184. Do you think that the present imperfect organisation is injurious in its effects on the administration of the sanitary Acts?—[Much more should be done to 31

Horton's proposed divisions are reproduced in the "Report of a Meeting of Delegates," in App. 9 of the present Report, 617.

Metropolitan Local Government

463

improve the health of the population. While the impetus must come from the workingmen of London, the municipal authorities alone can deal with the water supply and sewage.] [The companies responsible for supplying contaminated Thames water were identified as those ofSouthwark, Chelsea, and Lambeth.] 2186. That has been remedied?—That has been remedied under an Act of Parliament,32 after an inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, and in consequence the health of those districts has been improved. I merely cite it to show that although much depends on the householders of London, much also depends on the municipal organisation of London. 2187. Do you think that the water supply of London is a matter for which some public body ought to be responsible?—/ am of that opinion. 2188. Do you think that the powers in regard to water supply should rest with the general municipal body for all London, or with the separate municipalities of the districts?—/ think they should rest with the central body in which all the municipalities would be represented. 2189. You would probably have the same opinion about the gas supply?—/ am not so sure about gas, I have not thought of that. 2190. With regard to such subjects as the admission of railways into the metropolis?—/ think that should be dealt with by the central body, clearly. 2191. That central body would be the adviser of Parliament in the matter; or would you have it disposed of by the central body relieving Parliament from the duty?—/ think you could not forcibly take the property of individuals without coming to Parliament. 2192. Then, you would have all such schemes considered and reported on by the general municipality of London before they were submitted to Parliament?—It would be exceedingly desirable, and I think Parliament would find great assistance in such reports from the engineers and surveyors of the central body. 2193. Have you any remarks to make on the Poor-Law administration as connected with this subject?—[The ratio of rich to poor is very different in parts of the metropolis, and the regulations are such that the rating is very unequal, with the higher burden falling on those less able to pay. ] 2194. Should you think it desirable to give to the new municipalities any powers in regard to the administration of the Poor Law?—/ think it would be convenient and very desirable, that the relief of the poor of the metropolis should be placed in the hands of municipal bodies. 2195. The municipalities would become the boards of guardians under the Poor Law?—They might appoint committees, as some of the present vestries do, for the special management of the poor, but I am decidedly of opinion that it would be desirable to consolidate the Poor-Law administration of the metropolis. 32

15 & 16 Victoria, c. 84 (1852), sect. 1.

464

Appendix B

2196. It has been suggested that each of the municipal districts should be a Poor Law union; is that your opinion?—My opinion is perhaps not worth much, but I should say, on general principles, that it would be very desirable. 2191. Supposing that to be done, having reference to the Act lately passed for union rating, whereby the rating would become equal over each union,33 would that materially affect the inequality of rating that you have been pointing out, as regards the different parts of the metropolis generally?—/ have well considered that part of the subject, and am quite persuaded that the rating for the relief of the poor should be equally distributed over the whole property of the metropolis. 2198. But supposing that were not done, should you think that the mere equalising the rate over each of the municipal districts, which in the present state of the law would necessarily follow if it were constituted a union, would make a material difference in the present inequality?—That would be easily determined. I am afraid it would not make so much difference as would be desirable. The poorest districts would be generally grouped together, but, so far as it went, it would no doubt be a move in the right direction. [In Marylebone the vestry, under a Local Act, appoints guardians for the Poor Law.] 2204. There is one committee for the whole of their Poor Law duty?—Yes; I could easily get the exact information for the Committee if they desire. 2205.1 should like to hear what your idea would be of an administration of the Poor Law by the municipal bodies. Would you make them collect the rates?—They would collect the poor rates as they would the others, by some general arrangement. It would not be convenient to collect different rates for different purposes; one general rate should be raised for all purposes. 2206. You would make them responsible to a general municipal council, if I may so call it, in the nature of the Metropolitan Board of Works; a superior tribunal or body of that kind?—That would be a detail which it would be necessary to consider carefully, that is, to determine exactly howfar the central body should go and where it should stop. 2207. But as there are strong reasons for having a general rate, and a uniform system of relief for the whole metropolis, it is very important to have every suggestion for carrying that out?—Certainly. 2208. You think it might be done by the municipal bodies collecting the rate, and then delegating to the committees the administration of the relief?—The administration I should apprehend would be done by paid officers. It is quite clear that such a great work as that could only be done effectively by employing the best men you could get, and pay ing them. The committee would simply superintend and see that those officers did their duty. 33

28 & 29 Victoria, c. 79 (1865).

Metropolitan Local Government

465

2209. They would be in the nature of relieving officers of a superior class?—Certainly. 2210. You mentioned that you thought that the want of health and the high rate of mortality arose in a great measure in different districts from the poverty of the inhabitants?—Partly from the poverty. 2211. But does it not also in a great measure arise from the crowded state of those districts?—That is, I think, also a consequence partly of the poverty. 2212. You are well aware that the poorer districts are the most crowded?—Yes, I show exactly the effect of the density of population in increasing the mortality.34 2213. And you think that relief would be afforded by a general rate over the whole metropolis for the relief of the poor?—Yes. 2214. They would pay less, and the richer districts would pay more?—At present your rate is necessarily limited by the means of the people who pay the rate; and if your rate was equally distributed over the rich districts and the poor, it would lighten the pressure on the poor districts, while it would not oppress the rich. 2215. Has it ever occurred to you whether there might be a sort of financial body for the purpose of administering relief?—It would be very desirable to have a finance committee, I should think, as part of the business arrangements. 2216. And for that committee to distribute certain contributions to the committees under them for the purposes of relief; did it ever occur to you that that might be carried out?—That had not occurred to me; I should not say it was not desirable on that account; I have not thought of it. 2217. You are aware that these committees in their different districts are better acquainted with the poor than any concentrated municipal body could be?—/ should think they would probably be better acquainted with the peculiar circumstances of the poor of their own district than a central body would be. [After more discussion of equal rating, the questioning returned to pollution of the Thames, instances being cited of problems connected with sewage being emptied into the Thames above London. Farr asserted that the same protection as was adopted in the metropolis should be provided for the length of the Thames. ] 2240. That, however, could hardly be done by the metropolitan authorities; it would require some authority that could be exercised over the whole of the Thames?—Certainly. [The witness mentioned houses unfit for habitation, because of structural 34

Farr had been responsible for compiling the "Supplement to the Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England," PP, 1865, XIII; see esp. sect, ix, "Mortality of Cities; Relation between Density and Death-Rate," 33-5.

466

Appendix B

defects and insufficient conveniences, in St. Giles's, the Strand Union, Marylebone, Lambeth, and Southwark. ] 2381. Are they not sometimes built back to back, so that there is no proper ventilation?—Yes, they are built back to back in some instances. [The questioning on ventilation continued.} 2396. Does not Dr. Arnott's ventilator, on a principle similar to that of Jeffreys' respirator,35 enable you to get rid of the foul air, without losing the heat?—That is a good arrangement. I have adopted it myself, carrying the gas through the central tube, and admitting cold air through the tube that surrounds the other. 2397. The hot air going out warms the cold air coming in?—Yes. 2423. To return to the subject of a subdivision of the metropolis, would you prefer having one and the same division for all purposes rather than a separate division, as at present, for each of the separate purposes?—[There should be one system of division, with five levels of sub-division; the French model, with departments, arrondissements, cantons, and communes is good, but in England a further level at the top, into provinces, is desirable.] 2424.1 think I understood you to say that one of the strongest reasons for having only one division for all purposes, is that in that case the same set of officers could take charge of all or many of the different duties, whereas if you had different districts for each kind of duty you would need a different set of local officers for each?—Yes; that would be a question of economy. 2425. That is a consideration not likely to occur to the officers at the head of these special duties. They, only thinking of their special duties, if they find a division that is convenient for that purpose, would not be likely to consider any convenience that would require them to have before their minds other duties as well as their own?—Certainly. If all the heads of the departments to which the Honourable Chairman referred were brought together in a room like this, and if they said, "Let us consider whether we can arrange that the same district shall serve for all purposes:" I have no doubt they would make some general arrangement which would suit nearly all purposes of administration. 2426. And the convenience arising from having only one set of officers for all the various duties, would be only likely to occur to them if they were brought together, and would not be likely to operate as a motive on each of them separately?—In that way the evil has arisen: each officer sits in his own room and considers the case before him. If all the heads of departments were brought together and asked by this Committee to consider whether they could not make 35 Julius Jeffreys (1801-77) invented the respirator in 1835 to relieve his sister after a pulmonary attack; the principle was based on a ventilator invented by Neil Arnott (1788-1874) in 1810 to ventilate a ship.

Metropolitan Local Government

467

several subdivisions of the metropolis serve for nearly all purposes, I have no doubt that those eminent men would be able to agree on a general subdivision of the metropolis. 2427. Then, for statistical purposes, I understand you to say that you consider it of importance that the different kinds of statistical facts should be obtained for the same circumscription, in order that they may be of use for the purpose of comparison?—It is indispensable for the purpose of reasoning, and for the purpose of direction in administration. 2428. Therefore, that is an additional reason for having the same district for all the different classes of facts?—Certainly. 2429. Then, with regard to the desirability of obtaining a superior class of persons as members of municipal councils, I think the reason why you are of opinion that this would be obtained better under the proposed municipal system than under the present is twofold; you think that the motive which would induce a superior class of persons to come forward would be, first, the greater importance of the office, the greater importance that they would attach to the duty itself, owing to the concentration of a number of different districts into one; and, in the second place, the greater publicity to which they would be subject, being more in the public eye, so that they would get more credit for doing their work well, and greater discredit for doing it ill?—Certainly; there would then be real responsibility. The public eye would be directed to all these scenes of action; and would control them. George Morton [After the Chair's identifying question, Mill began the interrogation.] 2443. You last year published a pamphlet on the municipal government of the metropolis, which attracted a great deal of attention?—Yes. 2444. What did you propose in that pamphlet?—/ proposed to divide the metropolis into 11 boroughs and 99 wards, taking the metropolis as defined in the bills of mortality. 2445. Does that include everything that you think it desirable to include?—No; I think it should include the hamlet ofPenge, as that is included in the Metropolis Local Management Act. 2446. Are you acquainted with the provisions of the Bill that has been handed in to the Committee; do the divisions in the Bill coincide with those proposed in your pamphlet?—Almost exactly; it proposes to leave the City of London as it is; I merely proposed a few alterations to round off the boundaries. 2447. Neither in your plan nor in the Bill are the boundaries or districts adopted exactly coincident with the Parliamentary districts; what is the reason of that?—The existing Parliamentary boroughs do not seem to offer a suitable basis for a permanent arrangement, because, in the first place, there is a great inequality in the population in these various boroughs; the population of the Tower

468

Appendix B

Hamlets, for instance, is 647,000, according to the census of 1861, while that of Greenwich is only 139,000; secondly, the Parliamentary boroughs do not include the whole metropolis; there are certain parishes in Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey which are excluded, and they contain altogether a population of about 338,000; I thought it advisable that they should be all included. 2448. Besides including those districts which are not at present Parliamentary districts, you also take away certain parishes from some of the existing Parliamentary districts, and form new districts by an aggregation of those?—That is with a view of equalising, as far as possible, the population and the area of the various boroughs. 2449. Do you effect a tolerable approach to equalisation by that arrangement?— / think so. According to the scheme in my pamphlet, the highest population is in the borough ofSouthwark, which contains a population of about 347,000, whereas the Tower Hamlets at present contain a population of nearly twice that number. 2450. You would propose to divide the Tower Hamlets into two parts, for municipal purposes?—Yes. 2451. That is the only alteration you make in the Tower Hamlets?—Yes. 2452. Should you not think it desirable to include the West Ham district along with the Tower Hamlets?—There are besides this various other outlying districts in the north and west upon which a great difference of opinion is likely to prevail as to whether they should be included or not;for instance, Brentford and Chiswick, in the west; Edmonton andHighgate, in the north. 2453. These, however, can hardly be considered at present to be continuous with the metropolis?—/ think Turnham Green and Chiswick, Brentford, andKew, may be considered to be so. 2454. Perhaps in this sense, that there is one continuous line along the road that leads to them, or pretty nearly so, but there are not cross streets so as to make it, as it were, a town quarter?—/ think each is as much a town quarter or more so than some of the districts already included; for instance, Eltham, Lee, and Kidbrook. Consequently, in the Bill I think power is taken to include such districts as may be from time to time thought advisable. 2455. You think, then, that the area of the present Parliamentary districts is too great for the convenience of municipal government, and that it is desirable to have a smaller area, with a smaller population, than that of Marylebone or Finsbury as at present constituted?— Certainly, and I am of opinion that one system of districts should be adopted for all purposes. Some may think the present system more convenient perhaps; I think it seems a more sensible arrangement to have but one system for the whole; and if it is to be so, I think it should be such a system as may serve for police court districts, county court districts, poor law unions, registration districts, and other local purposes. I do not say that this is absolutely necessary, but I think it is desirable. 2456. You think in that way there would be a tolerable approach to an equality in

Metropolitan Local Government

469

the amount of duty thrown on the municipal bodies?—That was one of my principal ideas. They would be tolerably equal in area and population, with the exception of two boroughs on the south side of the Thames, Greenwich and Lambeth. There it would be impossible to equalize the areas and the population, because they are much more thinly populated than the boroughs on the north side. 2457'. When you speak of Greenwich, you understand the whole Parliamentary district, including Woolwich?—/ am speaking of the borough of Greenwich, as arranged by myself, which would include the whole of the union of Greenwich and the union ofLewisham, and is much more extensive than the present Borough of Greenwich. 2458. You do not propose that the whole Parliamentary district of Greenwich should be included in the metropolis. You do not consider Woolwich as a part of the metropolis?—Part ofWoolwich is included in the Parliamentary district, and the whole is included in the metropolis according to the Metropolis Local Management Act. 2459. Do you say that it is?—Yes, Woolwich is. 2460. There is a considerable district which has grown up adjoining the Lewisham district. There is an entirely new quarter consisting, of Lee, and part of the Blackheath district?—That is all included in the new borough of Greenwich which I propose. The present Parliamentary borough of Greenwich comprises St. Paul'sand St. Nicholas, Deptford; part of Greenwich, Woolwich, Plumstead, and Charlton; only portions of the last four parishes. I propose that the whole of those parishes should be included in the borough. [In response to the Chair, Horton said he would add the parishes of Lee, Kidbrook, Lewisham (including Sydenham), and E It ham.] 2462. Your pamphlet contains a list of the parishes that would compose each of the districts that you propose. Have your views on that subject been at all modified, or do you still adhere to the lists given in your pamphlet?—I still adhere to that list. I think it would be advisable that the Parliamentary boroughs and the municipal boroughs should be co-extensive, but it would depend upon how many additional members might be allotted to the metropolis under the new Reform Bill,36 whether we might be able to adopt an entirely similar system for Parliamentary and municipal boroughs. 2463. The division you propose, being grounded on area and population, is one which you think would be convenient for Parliamentary purposes as well, in case it should be decided to give additional members to the metropolis?—/ think so; but perhaps I may say that, as a temporary measure, I proposed that the existing members might, if this system should be thought advisable, be distributed amongst the new boroughs. 36

"A Bill for the Redistribution of Seats," to be introduced by Gladstone on May 7.

470

Appendix B

2464. Are you able to give a list of the places that might be considered as central in the different municipalities that you propose to create, and suitable situations for municipal buildings?—Charing Cross might be considered the centre of the City of Westminster. I consider that High-street, Kensington, would be about the centre of the new borough of Kensington; and Marylebone-road would be the centre of the new borough ofMarylebone; Euston-square would form nearly the centre of the new borough of Bloomsbury; "The Angel," Islington, would be about the centre of Finsbury; Hackney-road, of Hackney; Whitechapel-road, or Commercial-road, of the Tower Hamlets; Kennington Park, of Lambeth; and New or Old Kent-road, ofSouthwark. 2465. Supposing these districts formed the basis of Parliamentary representation, I think the additional representation they would get, if each had two members, would only amount to six?—Six, including Kensington. [The Chair intervened on the question of inconvenience from the size of proposed boroughs, citing Finsbury, including Lincoln's Inn.] 2470. It is in Bloomsbury?—Yes; the centre of that would be Euston-square, not so very far off. [The questioning turned to the tension between practicability and Horton's theoretical scheme.} 2482. For statistical purposes there would always be a convenience in having the same districts for different descriptions of facts, because facts of one kind often bear an important relation to facts of another kind, of which relation no use can be made unless the facts relate to the same districts?—That is the case. 2483. There is also this consideration; that duties of different kinds may often be conveniently entrusted to the same set of executive officers: as, at present, many duties created by Acts of Parliament of a general and national character are habitually performed by officers who were originally appointed for merely local purposes; and in fact, if they were not, there would seldom be any other officers to do them, unless you created others for the purpose, which would occasion great additional expense?—Certainly; many duties of different kinds might be entrusted to one officer, just as in the case of the relief of the poor, the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and the inspecting of nuisances. In many cases, these offices might be combined in one person; the man who goes to a house to register births or deaths in a poor district, would naturally have his attention drawn to the state of the house, and to any nuisances that might exist. [The utility of giving many duties to one officer with resultant problems of responsibility and effectiveness was canvassed. ] 2525. Do you not think that if an officer had not enough to do, it would often be a better arrangement to give him additional duties within the same limited district,

Metropolitan Local Government

471

than the same duties over a larger district?—/ think it would certainly be more convenient and that all his duties should be confined within similar boundaries. 2526. The present Board of Works or boards of guardians would not have the power of adding to his duties by adding other duties within the same district; the only power they would have would be that of giving him a larger district for his limited duties, and that might not be convenient, but it might be convenient to give him within the same limited district other duties than those he now performs?—/// gather the meaning of the Honourable Chairman, he would suggest that although there is a small districtfor registration purposes, there might be a large district for other purposes. [The Chair clarified by saying registration or other purposes as the existing municipality chose; Horton thought the proposed arrangement would be inconvenient. ] 2528. If all the duties were concentrated in one municipal body, they could concentrate all or many of the local duties within the same district in the same hands, while the present authorities have only the power of giving a larger district for duties limited in kind, and that might often not be convenient, while the other system might?—Exactly. Thomas Beggs37 [Again Mill began after the Chair's identifying questions.] 2531. You have had some experience as a member of a vestry in Westminster?— / have. I became a vestryman of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, one of the six parishes forming the Strand District Union, in 1851, and was appointed by the vestry to represent it as one of the nine representatives to the Strand District Board, when Sir Benjamin Hall's Act came into operation. 2532. You have had a seat at the Board about nine years?—Yes; I resigned in 1864. 2533. And during that time did you pay particular attention to the working of the Metropolis Local Management Act, so far as your own district was concerned?— [Yes, through membership in the important surveyors' committee; and earlier through an official connection with the Health of Towns Association. His conclusion was that London was the most expensively and probably the worst governed city in the empire. Sir Benjamin Hall's Act helped improve the system.] 2534. But you still think it leaves the local administration of London very imperfect?—[To show how, Beggs called the Committee's attention to anomalies by means of a map and a schedule of rates related to jurisdictions.3*] 37

Thomas Beggs (1808-96), mechanical engineer, sanitary reformer, and writer; he had been one of the early supporters of Mill's candidacy for Westmister. 38 Notes to Beggs' testimony say that both map and schedule were handed in, but only the schedule was printed, in App. 2, 270.

472

Appendix B

2535. Are there any other disadvantages, besides those of which you have given an account, which you consider to attend the present subdivision?—[Beggs referred, again handing in evidence, to many disadvantages arising from the real or apparent lack of identity of interest among the parishes. The confusion over officers' duties and their reliance on private business contributed to the inefficiency.] [In answer to the Chair, Beggs indicated that the system, by making multiple occupations necessary, was at fault, not the officers themselves.] 2537. Do you believe that such disadvantages as those which you have pointed out are inseparable from the present system, or would it be practicable to effect any arrangement between adjoining districts, so as materially to lessen, and perhaps remove, the inconvenience you have referred to?—[Some makeshift arrangements seem to work, but difficulties will arise when local Boards disagree about their interests.] 2538. Are there any other disadvantages which, in your judgment, are traceable to the great subdivision of jurisdictions?—There is one thing in relation to medical officers that I should like to point out, but that, perhaps, does not refer so much to a matter of jurisdiction as to the way in which the officers are appointed; there is imminent danger; I do not know that such a case has occurred with us, but I know it may occur, of medical officers being obliged to summon members of their own Boards for infractions of the Acts; I know it has occurred in several districts of the metropolis. I am not at present acquainted with any such case in our own district, but I think the danger of such cases is imminent. 2539. That, you think, would not be liable to happen if the districts were larger?—If the districts were larger, in a city like London, which is rather a conglomeration of cities united together, there must be a federal head to govern that work which is common to the whole metropolis, the management of the great thoroughfares, the main drainage, and matters of that sort. My judgment is that the appointment of a medical officer ought to be in the hands of the federal government, in order to render him independent of the local Boards. 2540. What is your opinion of the present mode of election to the Metropolitan Board by the vestries?—When Sir Benjamin Hall's Act came into operation, I looked with considerable favour upon the plan of double election; that is, the ratepayers electing members of the vestry, and the vestry themselves electing representatives to the district Board. I have seen great evils in the system and in my opinion the system of direct election would be a great deal better than the present. 2541. On what ground do you think it would be better?—/ think it would create a greater responsibility; that it would bring into closer connection the represented with the representative, and would therefore secure better representation. 2542. Are you acquainted with the plan for the municipal administration of London, which has been embodied in the draft of the Bill that has been laid before the Committee?—Yes, I have seen that Bill.

Metropolitan Local Government

473

2543. What is your opinion of that plan?—As to the general principles of the Bill, without pledging myself to its details, I should support it. 2544. Have you formed any opinion about the local taxation of the metropolis, and the improvement that might be made in it?—/ have seen, during the time I have been a vestryman, and also a member of the Board, very great inequalities, but they are slowly adjusting themselves. There is an improvement going on, but I think the one essential thing would be the supervision of the whole. I know it is the opinion of many practical men, who have given much attention to it, that it ought to begin with the land tax. They point out great differences in the various districts, great inequalities, and they think that an equalisation of the land-tax ought to begin all reform as to rating. 2545. That, however, is not a local tax?—It is not a local tax. They take that as the basis. At present our local taxation is based upon the property tax. They merely urge the land tax as the basis. Without supporting that opinion (because I have not considered it sufficiently to be able to do so), I may say that I believe that the rating of the metropolis is very imperfect, and that the revision of it is very necessary. 2546. What do you consider are its special defects?—Its inequality generally. I know instances where rating has gone on for a great number of years upon the old system, upon a valuation made long before property had acquired its present value. The plan usually adopted, by some sluggish vestries in the centre of London, is this, that as leases fall in, and improvements are made, they re-survey the property, and re-assess it. In my own neighbourhood, within the last three or four years, I am told these discrepancies are disappearing very fast, but I know that there have been serious anomalies, so that the property on one side of a street has been assessed at a much lower rate than that on the other, from the mere fact that no revision had taken place for a series of years. [With reference to the difficulty, apparently increasing, of getting good local representatives, Beggs offered his opinion that they did not have the motive provided by service to a broad community.] 2560. You think that the approbation or disapprobation of Westminster would be a stronger motive of action than the approbation or disapprobation of St. Paul's Covent Garden?—Certainly. [Beggs agreed that extensive coverage of municipal deliberations by the newspapers would encourage better participation.] 2566. There are, I believe, local papers in different parts of London which would no doubt report the proceedings?—No doubt, it must be obvious that the two things are essentially different. I think there are five different managements in Westminster. If they were all concentrated in one, the whole business would become of a much more important character. The public press is deterred probably from the comparatively insignificant nature of the transactions of five or six different Boards.

474

Appendix B

2567'. In fact they do not think that there would be sufficient public interest to induce them to give space in the papers?—Exactly so, if the whole of Westminster were under one management, it would be of considerable importance. 2568. The more important matters that came before it, even such papers as The Times might think it worth while to report?—No doubt, as they report now the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board, and of the City Corporation. 10 May Thomas Beggs, continued [Mill was the first questioner. ] 2625. In your evidence the other day you stated that the management of your district was very costly, and at the same time very inefficient; will you explain in what the inefficiency consists?—[With reference to paving, the excessive amount spent on management, if applied to the cost of repairing the streets, would be sufficient to improve their present bad condition.] 2626. On the subject of rating, you stated that the rating is very unequal; are there any objections, in your judgment, to the way in which the rates are levied?—[Using his own rates as an example, Beggs asserted that the system resulted in extra costs in collection, increased trouble in supervision, and some jobbery and discontent. ] 2627. Would not that be inconsistent with the principle that money voted by local bodies should be for special purposes; do you not think that municipal bodies ought to have the power of raising money only for specified purposes authorised by Act of Parliament, and not for general purposes at their discretion; or how would you adjust that matter?—The adjustment seems to me to be very easy. Here is an example: a committee appointed by the Board itself gives an estimate of what is wanted for the purposes of the district; then a rate is made by the Board for as much as may cover it; and when the whole of the estimates are before them, I do not see why they should not levy a general rate, rather than do it by piecemeal, partly for one purpose and partly for another, and this might embrace any sums wanted for special purposes. 2628. It might be thought by many that local bodies ought not to have the power of levying rates at their discretion for general purposes, for the benefit of the community; that Parliament ought always to decide beforehand what are the purposes for which the local bodies should be allowed to levy money?—/ apprehend that under the Municipal Act that is so; a power is given for paving, lighting, cleansing and improving the district, and for levying rates for such purposes; but then the peculiarity of London is this, that a certain portion of the drainage (that is the arterial drainage, the main drainage) falls under the control of the Metropolitan Board, while the minor or auxiliary drainage is in the hands of the vestries and local Boards. Probably, if municipal authorities were found to be the best thingfor London, with one federal head, it might be an expedient course to

Metropolitan Local Government

475

grant to the general body, who would have the control of all that which belonged to the metropolis generally the power of levying a general rate, leaving the local authorities to do as they now do, levying a rate for local purposes. 2629.1 merely wish to elicit your opinion on the subject?—My opinion is that one general rate is perfectly practicable for all these purposes; for all the purposes indicated by the Act of Parliament; that is the general and subsidiary drainage, paving, lighting, cleansing, and improving the district; and that that would be certainly the most convenient course. It is the one that the best municipalities in the country adopt. 2630. Have you any objection to make to the present qualification of vestrymen?39—[The requirement that those elected should occupy £40 premises is evaded, and undesirable landlords consequently obtain seats on the Board. ] 2631. Those probably belong to the class that are most interested in thwarting the purposes of Parliament, particularly sanitary arrangements, and the improvement of the houses of the labouring classes?—They are the class most interested in keeping in check proper and legitimate improvements. We find the most difficulty from them; they are generally very loud in the protests against extravagance, while we generally find them practically the most extravagant. [Beggs agreed with the Chair that actual rather than rated occupation to the value of £40 should be required. ] 2633. You said, if the division of London into municipalities was effected, that there should be a central Board, a kind of federal head, for the management of the joint concerns of the whole metropolis; what is your opinion as to the constitution of that body?—[On balance, but without offering a decided opinion, Beggs said that it should be elected not directly by the ratepayers, but by the separate municipalities, so that it would represent them. However, direct election would be better than the present confused arrangements, under which the ratepayers elected the vestrymen, who elected the members of the district Board, who then elected a member of the Metropolitan Board. ] 2634. As you have not formed any decided opinion as to which is preferable in the election to the central Board, direct election by ratepayers or election by vestries, probably it would be desirable not to go into the minutiae of that question at present?—/ would rather not do so, because I have not sufficiently considered it. I only wish to state that my opinion at present leans to the view, that the central body ought to be elected of the Boards. 2635. You believe that the complaint you have made as to the cost and inefficiency of the management under the present system is applicable to all the Metropolitan district Boards and vestries, more or less?—/ have heard expressions of dissatisfaction, I believe, from every Board in London, that is from 39

In sect. 6 of 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120.

476

Appendix B

respectable and influential members of the Boards, that the present system is a costly one. I wish to hand in an amended return of one year's expenses of our district.™ [He handed in the return, and the discussion turned to several related issues, and then to his view of wards. ] 2660. Do you not think that the average size of a ward in the City of London is very much too small to form the unit of municipal government; to form a separate municipal government in itself, as it were?—/ think so. 2661. They are smaller than the present vestry districts?—Many of them are very much smaller. [The question of modes of election was again mooted in connection with the attraction of good representatives.] 2675. Might not the mayor be elected by a separate vote, in which case a person might be candidate for the office of mayor as distinct from that of a member of the municipality?—/ think there would be objections to that. I think the office ought to be considered, and it is so considered in the country, as a reward for long continued or eminent public services. I think it is better the body over whom the mayor presides should elect him. [The Chair asked about the election of the Lord Mayor of London; his election was by the Aldermen and then by the Livery. ] 2677. Is the mayor in the provinces usually changed from year to year?—The cases are exceptional in which the mayor is reappointed; the office is generally kept open as a reward for men who have served the public. Instances do occur, but they are exceptional, where the mayor is elected a second time. I knew it to occur once during my residence in Nottingham, but it was a special case; it has been once, to my knowledge, the case in Birmingham, and once in Leeds. [Beggs did not agree with the Chair that in Birmingham a tavern keeper was elected twice, and added that re-election was more common in some of the old cities.] 2679. Perhaps it would be more necessary in the case of a general body than in that of a local municipality to have a permanent chairman, as in the case of the Board of Works?—Unquestionably, but the presence of a man in the chair, who is supposed to take an interest in its business, and whose duty it is to preside over the meetings, is very important in all bodies. I do not at all like the notion of men meeting together, and probably expending large sums of money, without one or two gentlemen being looked upon as permanently present, and with a chairman elected only for the evening. ^See App. 2, 270.

Metropolitan Local Government

411

Thomas Hare [After the Chair's identifying questions, Mill began.] 2682. You are an inspector of charities?—/ am an inspector under the Charity Commission. 2683. And in that capacity you have had considerable opportunity of observing the working of local bodies?—/ have in many of the provincial cities, and also in London; I have held inquiries connected with the Charity Commission, I think, in every parish in the City of London. 2684. Is there any statement you wish to make, or any opinion you can give about the quality and character of the local government, as it has come within your notice?—It has been only a very special part of the organisation of local government that I have had the opportunity of observing officially; that portion of it which has been administered by the City Companies and by the vestries of the London parish. 2685. What is your opinion generally as far as you have observed, of the working of that form of government, and of the qualifications of those who exercise rule under it?—In the long course of years the changes which have taken place in the condition of London and its inhabitants have created great difficulty in following anything like the original directions. The parishes of London have come into possession of vast funds which they have little opportunity of applying except in a very limited and narrow manner, when confined to their present areas of operation. [That answer pertained particularly to the City of London rather than the metropolis generally.} 2687. You have paid a great deal of attention to the subject of representation generally, both for national and local purposes?—/ have. 2688. You have written several articles or essays on the different branches of the subject?—/ may say with regard to the government of London, that in the year 1862, I first published a small work on the Local Government of London.41 In 1863 I was the author of an article published in Macmillan's Magazine on the "Ideal of a Local Government for the Metropolis. "42 In 18641 drew a Bill for the organisation of bodies to apply some of the great funds, which are applicable to public and charitable purposes; a voluntary method of organisation amongst charity trustees and others which would in some measure be a substitute for local government. This year at the Social Science Association, I took an opportunity of reading a paper on the subject of the present condition of local government in

4l

Usque ad coelum. Thoughts on the Dwellings of the People, Charitable Estates, Improvements, and Local Government in the Metropolis (London: Low, 1862). 42 Macmillan's Magazine, VII (Apr. 1863), 441-7.

478

Appendix B

London, and preparing the rough draft of a bill, which, it appeared to me, would be the basis to a suitable measure for the amendment of that government.43 2689. Will you be good enough to state to the Committee an outline of your scheme for the local government of London?—The main features of it are these: the direct election of the principal governing body, to be composed, say of 150 members, of whom 50 members should be directly chosen by the owners of property, and 100 members by the occupiers; the council so to be formed, including all the property and inhabitants of the 'great metropolitan area, being entitled, " The Lord Mayor and Council of London." The Lord Mayor of the City of London, for the time being, should be the president during his year of office, and there should be a permanent vice-president; say the present chairman of the Board of Works. Eight aldermen of the City of London, at least if not elected, as they probably would be, should be added to the body. Twelve members of the Board of Works should be added for three years, to keep up a continuity between the present board and the future body.44 2690. In what manner would you propose that the members should be elected?—[Hare replied that the proposal, which formed part of a general scheme of representation, was under active consideration in Geneva, Frankfort, and Sydney.} 2691. Will you be so good as to state the mode of voting which you recommend?—[The first requirements are proper alphabetical lists of voters, both occupiers and owners, prepared by the collectors of taxes. The votes of the owners would be weighted by the value of the property, and proportional representation would apply.] 2692. In fact, you would allow any 1,000 voters, supposing 1,000 to be the number entitled to a member on a comparison of the number of members with the number of voters; supposing 1,000 to be the quotient, you would give to any 1,000 voters who could agree the power of returning any member?—Yes. 2693. So that no portion of the electors equal to or above 1,000, would be unrepresented?—No person would be unrepresented. It appears to me that you would bring all the desire for public improvement, all the energy, all the philanthropy that existed in a city, or in the metropolis, and give to it the power of organisation, so that each should have its exponent in the consultative body. [Questions were asked about the possible loss of local loyalty. Hare replied that the local government of the City of London was left untouched in his scheme.] 2699. Whatever local feeling existed in the minds of the local people would be fully represented?—Yes. 43 Actually in 1865, reported in the Morning Star, 11 Apr., 1865,3. For Mill's support of Hare at that meeting, see No. 4. ^For these details see "Ideal of a Local Government," esp. 445, where, however, 75 representatives of property are suggested.

Metropolitan Local Government

479

[The Chair remained sceptical on this issue, saying that an Exeter Hall society might elect a candidate while a district might fail to do so, and Hare further elaborated. ] 2704. As every locality has strong reasons for wishing to be locally represented, the majorities would usually elect local candidates, while minorities who could not carry the local candidate whom they preferred would probably vote for some candidate on general grounds?—/ cannot doubt that that would be so. I cannot doubt that each locality would elect those who were thought most desirable for the locality. It is not, however, the houses that are to be taken care of, but the people, and it may be left to their discretion. I do not suppose that the people would be indifferent about the matter. That appears to me to be a visionary apprehension. 2705. If the people preferred to elect an eminent man for general reasons, at the sacrifice of local interest, you think they ought to be allowed to do so?—Surely that ought not to be prevented. [Giving further details of his plan, Hare explained that a successful candidate would have to draw support from neighbouring districts.] 2719. That is, if a district were too small to be entitled to a Member for itself?—Necessarily. [Hare averred that in his scheme the groupings were voluntary, not arbitrarily determined. ] 2721. Anyone might declare himself a candidate for all the groups, if he liked?—Yes. 2722. And he would be the Member for those which chose to elect him?—Yes, if there was a quota of votes; he may be a candidate for Ayr and also for Glasgow. [A candidate who received 50 votes as against 30 for an opponent, in a ward with only 100 inhabitants, would be elected even if the quota were 1000.] 2724. That is, if he got a quota by means of other votes?—Yes. It is perfectly simple; the person having the greatest number of votes in each district, having the quota made up elsewhere, would be the representative of that district. [Hare continued to maintain that local representation would not be destroyed under his scheme.} 2726. The question is, what is there to induce or to enable the electors to elect a person to look after their local interest especially; I apprehend there can be no other resource than the wish in the minds of the electors to do so; and you probably place your reliance upon that?—Yes; if the inhabitants of any locality wish to be represented by any individual of special character or qualifications, if that person has more votes than any other, he becomes their representative, because they have shown a greater appreciation of him than of any other person.

480

Appendix B

2121. Is not that rather a question of how you would apportion the representatives to the different districts; the Chairman seemed to think it possible or probable, under your system, that there might be no representatives, or very few, of the local interests, inasmuch as everybody might elect on grounds of a general nature, having to do with the localities; no doubt you might even then apportion them to localities, but that would not make them representatives of the local interest?—No; if at present there were in any locality a population so utterly indifferent to the business of the locality that they would elect anybody to govern them, it seems to me that the difficulty would arise now; you are supposing a state of things which would equally apply to our existing system. 2728. Only that they are obliged now to elect somebody, by however few votes, and this somebody will naturally be a local person; whereas under your system there would be an opening by which inhabitants of the locality might elect a total stranger if they liked; they can do it now, but it would be extremely unlikely; under your system it would be much more likely?—It seems to me that with adequate notices of what was going on during the process of the elections you are supposing a degree of public stagnation that one could hardly expect when it is remembered that the voters in any place can elect their own local candidate, every vote being almost certain to have its result. [The Chair continued questioning the effect on local representation, finally saying, with Hare's agreement, that a defeated minority would have its votes transferred, and so could, in combination with other minorities, elect a representative.] 2741. And the majority, if it do not amount to a quota, might hope to be reinforced by voters from elsewhere, and so get its members?—Yes; the sole object is this: to give to each individual the power of using his best and most conscientious judgment in the act of exercising his suffrage. [In face of the Chair's scepticism, Hare maintained that transferred votes would go to worthy candidates at least as often as votes did under present arrangements. ] 2744. Do you not think that the majority would have an inducement to bring forward as good a candidate as they could, in order that they might have a chance of being reinforced by votes from other districts?—That would be one object. In all cases those who put forward a candidate would desire that he should be a man having the greatest personal recommendations, in order that he might attract the votes of others. [Hare admitted that his scheme had never had a practical trial, majorities not being willing to limit their powers, and went on to say that his plan would allow him to vote for worthy people, an option that he had seldom had under the present arrangements. ]

Metropolitan Local Government

481

2751. The voter is now restricted in his choice to two or three, no one of whom may suit him, but under your system he could choose from the whole community?—He is now at the mercy of a few individuals, whose nominees he must vote for or have his vote thrown away. [Among other issues, the question of the scheme's arithmetic arose.} 2768. You would divide, after the election, the total number of votes given by the number of members?—Yes. 28 May Thomas Hare, continued [Mill opened the questioning.] 2793. You said that your system had been taken into consideration at Frankfort and Geneva, but had not been adopted there; I believe it has been adopted in one country?—[Hare indicated that he had forgotten to mention its adoption in Denmark. ] 2794. Are you aware whether this law is still in operation; a change of circumstances has possibly put an end to the Rigsraad altogether?45—/ have not had the opportunity of learning what has been the fact; I think the Rigsraad was an assembly which met once in two years. 2795.1 believe it was for Denmark and Schleswig combined; the constitution of the Rigsdag, which is the Representative Assembly of Denmark only, of course remains as it was, and the system had not been adopted there; it was in framing the constitution for the United Principality that it was adopted?—It was adopted for the United Principality, and under great disadvantages, inasmuch as throughout the whole of that time the struggle between Denmark and the Duchies was going on, and the system was repudiated in the Duchies, as any connection with Denmark was in a great measure repudiated. 2796. You proposed the other day that the election of members of the governing bodies should be extended to two or three days. I am not aware that this is suggested in any of your printed writings?—/ had adopted that from an amendment proposed by the Reform Association of Geneva. It appeared to them that if there were any danger of public attention not being sufficiently attracted to the election, so that it might fall into a few hands, that would be corrected by extending it over two or three days, and reporting at the end of the first day the result, when public attention would be called to it, so that any absence of attention on the first day would be corrected on the second. 45

Denmark's Electoral Law of 2 Oct., 1855, introduced proportional representation into the Rigsraad as part of the new consititution for the United Kingdom of Denmark, Schleswig, and Holstein. The assembly ended when the duchies were lost in the Prusso-Danish War of 1864.

482

Appendix B

2797. Any intrigue might be frustrated?—Any intrigue might be frustrated if notice were given of it in that form; and the system does not seem open to the objection of Parliamentary elections extending over several days. 2798. You propose that the whole of the municipal voters for the metropolis, to whatever place they belonged, should be able to vote for any candidate who had started for any part of the metropolis;46 is that an essential part of your plan, or might votes be confined to separate boroughs?—It is by no means essential. I preferred to introduce it in thatform, because it seemed to me that the widest scope you could give to individual thought the better it would be for the result of the election. If the Committee thought proper to recommend that the metropolis should be divided into boroughs, the vote of each inhabitant of each borough might be confined to that borough; or whatever division might be adopted, it might, in like manner, be confined to that division. 2799. You said that on your plan candidates would propose themselves, instead of being proposed by others, as they are now; is that an essential part of your plan?—/ was asked whether members would not propose themselves. That is by no means essential. Indeed, I suppose it would not be so. The proposal would be made in writing, instead of being made, as now, at the vestry; it may be made in writing, signed by two electors. There is no reason why the individual should propose himself any more than candidates for Parliament. 2800. It has been made a criticism on your system that it would require active steps to be taken in many cases, in which a passive operation suffices under the present system. What is really the difference between the present system and yours in that respect?—[At present notice is given only on the doors of places of worship; the time of election is fixed, and only those few who know of it, and have special interest in electing someone, actually vote. Hare's scheme provides for a voting paper and list of candidates being left at the house of each voter, or otherwise made accessible.} 2801. Voting papers and lists of candidates might be circulated among the voters, independently of your system?—It might. 2802. These things are not peculiar to your system?—No. 2803. But what you rely upon, I apprehend, is the greater interest that would be excited in the election, by the greater latitude of choice given to the electors, when not confined to the small number that might be put up by parties or sections?— [Indeed the essence of self-government is the thought produced by individual action.] 2804. You think it a great recommendation of a system of election that it calls out the active faculties, and excites a keen interest among the electors?—That is exactly what I thought; it seemed to me that the question with regard to local government before the Committee was, by what means the best thought of the ^See Hare's speech, "On Such an Organization of the Metropolitan Elections."

Metropolitan Local Government

483

community could be brought to bear for the purpose of effectuating that local government, 2805. Would your plan be calculated to diminish the objection which it is supposed might be entertained to having a municipality for the whole of the metropolis, on the ground of the great power such a body would possess?—[The fear of such a powerful body near the national seat of government would be much lessened by the election of representatives not of numbers only, but of all varieties of thought .property, influence, and socialforce. Then a metropolitan government would be a source of real strength rather than of danger to the national government. ] 2806.1 believe you consider one of the recommendations of your plan to be, that persons of great eminence, both socially and mentally, would be disposed to seek municipal distinctions?—It seems to me to be so. The mode of obtaining municipal position being so entirely altered, and made to depend so much on the character and position of the individual, and there being a provision by which great proprietors and persons having a material interest in the metropolis could act together in bringing persons in, it seems to me that you would have a body of some distinction, to which some of the best members of the community might well be proud to belong. 2807. Persons who are well known to a considerable number of voters would not be in danger of being excluded because they were not known to the majority?— Exactly. 2808. That is your idea?—That is the idea which has animated me in bringing these proposals before the Committee. 2809. Would there not be a difficulty in inducing persons of social importance to take municipal offices, in consequence of their not being usually resident in London during the whole year?—It seems to me that the business of a great city like London need not require more constant attention than the business of the nation at large, and that the same suspension of its sittings, leaving the business to proper officers, might take place as takes place with regard to Parliament. All great measures of importance, except purely administrative matters, might be confined to that period during which the great portion of the intellect of the country is in London. I can see no reason why there should be constant sittings. 2810. You think that the executive functionaries of this body might be permanent, and that the deliberative and controlling body might hold intermittent sittings?—It has occurred to me that that would be a very convenient system, and a perfectly feasible one. 2811. In regard to the votes which in your system for the metropolis would be allotted to property, what would be, in your plan, the qualification of the voter?—[In addition to great proprietors such as the Marquis of Westminster and the Duke of Bedford, corporate voters would include the City Companies, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Charity Commissioners or the Poor Law

484

Appendix B

Commissioners (for charity property, including educational, which may amount to one-fourth of the whole metropolis— "/ can go through miles of the crowded parts of London composed entirely of charity property "), and the Presidents of the College of Physicians and Surgeons (for the great hospitals}.] 2812. And you would give that class of votes in proportion to the amount of property?—Exactly, in proportion to the property; so that a quotient of £100,000 a year might be made up, say of £50,000, £5,000, £1,000, and so on, until the amount was completed. 2813. The return would state, that so many thousand pounds a year voted in favour of each candidate?—Exactly, avoiding all that arbitrary distribution which is adopted in the election of guardians, where a man who is rated under £50 a year has one vote, under £100 two votes, and so on, up to six votes. On this plan the weight of the vote will be exactly according to the value of the property, not interfering in any respect with the occupying votes which are given on other grounds.41 2814. What is the proportion of the municipal body which you would wish to have elected on this plan?—/ suggested in my former examination that, if there were 150 members, 50 might be elected by property and 100 as occupiers; one-third by property and two-thirds by occupiers.48 2815. In the case of occupiers, would you propose a qualification, or allow all occupiers to vote?—/ think the Parliamentary qualification might be adopted. I see no reason why the Parliamentary qualification should not be the municipal qualification. 2816. It has sometimes been thought that a lower qualification may be admitted for municipal government than for national government?—/ should like to have the municipal suffrage of the occupiers as low as possible; preserving in all cases the rule that the voter shall be registered. 2817. Would you give plurality of votes in the case of occupiers?—No, only single votes. 2818. You only take the amount of property into consideration in the votes allotted to property?—Exactly. 2819. Have you formed any opinion what the qualification should be, or if any qualification should be fixed by law, for the persons elected?—[The law ought not to impose qualifications; the matter should be left entirely to the electors. ] 2820. When you have a proper constituency, or the best constituency possible, you would trust it?—Yes; it seems to me, that to impose a qualification is only an obstructive proceeding. We might find merchants in London who have ceased to possess a qualification in London, but are very much interested in the City from old associations, who live quite beyond its boundaries, and yet may have much 47

See "Ideal of a Local Government for the Metropolis," 445. See Q. 2689.

48

Metropolitan Local Government

485

leisure, and be very desirous of attending to public business, who would be entirely disqualified by some artificial rating clause, which you might impose. I would earnestly impress that as a very important thing, that the qualification of the elected person should be entirely abolished, and left altogether to the electors. 2821. Supposing that better municipal bodies were obtained in this way than hitherto, you would probably consider that one of the advantages of that would be that the municipal bodies would be fit to undertake classes of duties that have not hitherto been entrusted to them?—[The result would be that municipal governments could deal with matters that now obstruct Parliament'sproper business.] 2822. You are of that opinion with reference to the whole country, not merely as regards the metropolis?—[In support of this view, Hare cited a Bill concerning a savings' bank in Bradford that would be far better treated as a local matter. Other instances would be charities, local improvements, and railway sites.] 2823. Would there not be great advantage in having bodies all over the country to whom Parliament could entrust the execution of Acts that it might make for the public benefit, which it now does not make at all, or which are unexecuted or imperfectly executed, because there are no persons that Parliament can trust to execute them in the localities?—Undoubtedly. [Lord John Manners objected to Hare's having suggested that the vote for educational property be given to the head of the Council on Education, a temporary political official who would represent Governmental rather than institutional views.] 2828. Would you object to have that property represented, not by the head of the educational department, but by some one of its permanent officers?—None; I selected the Vice-President as the officer who stands most in the public view, but it might be by a permanent officer. I have no special attachment to the VicePresident. [After a variety of questions, the Chair suggested, and Hare agreed, that frequently householders in London had no knowledge of local affairs, including elections.} 2849. Is it not also the fact that a large proportion of the voters for the metropolitan districts, amongst the higher classes especially, do not vote at all, even for Members of Parliament?—/ believe that is so in a very large number of cases. [The questioning turned again to the likelihood of stirring interest in local elections.] 2855. You rely on the voting papers for that?—Yes; the action would be effectual without attracting the attention of the public to the individual who exercised it.

486

Appendix B 49

John Dangerfield [After extensive questioning by other members of the Committee, Mill opened a new avenue.] 2927. Your experience of the working of metropolitan vestries, I understand you to say, is derived mainly from the working of your own vestry?—Quite so. 2928. Your vestry appears to comprise several persons of very considerable importance; some of very high social positions, others of the highest class of tradesmen?—/ mentioned some of the superior class of tradesmen. There are no men in the vestry now belonging to the highest class of society. Lord Overstone was a member for a time; Mr. Hoare was a member, and continued to be a member up to the time of his death; we supplied his place the other day.50 The most active and the best men are the superior class of tradesmen in the parish: then there are others of considerable intelligence, not occupying quite so high a position in business. 2929. Do you think there are many metropolitan vestries that have the advantage of such men?—/ do not know; to some extent, I should say, not to a considerable extent; I doubt if it is to the same extent. 2930. Lord Overstone is not only a man of high social position, but also of great ability and power of speaking, and probably while he was a member, he exercised very great influence in the vestry?—He did not very often attend; there were few occasions on which he attended; he was willing to attend on certain occasions, when there were matters of great interest brought forward. Our hour of meeting (seven in the evening) was against the attendance of the class of persons to which he belonged. 2931. Do you not think that in those vestries, which have not such persons belonging to them, it might easily happen, and does happen, that they are much under the control of persons who are very often the owners of those properties which are in the state you describe, and which it is so extremely desirable to have remedied?—/ do not know that to be the fact; I should doubt it very much, because I think the general feeling and sympathy of the vestry would be very much against such persons. They would be pointed out by the vestry as persons who should not be listened to. 2932. Do you think that there is in all vestries that degree of interest in the subject, and that degree of care about the persons appointed, which appears to exist in yours?—[While afew inappropriate people have been elected elsewhere, on the whole the quality is impressive.] 2933. Your experience is of a vestry in which that influence, if it exists, must be much counteracted by persons of a superior class?—/ have no doubt that in a body 49

Vestry clerk and solicitor for St. Martin-in-the-Fields parish. Samuel Jones Loyd, Lord Overstone (1796-1883), banker and financial expert, and Henry Hoare (1807-66), also a banker and active public figure. 50

Metropolitan Local Government

487

of that kind the better class of persons have a degree of influence, almost insensibly, over those of a lower class, who perhaps have opinions of their own which they may be desirous to oppose to those of persons who are higher than themselves in society; but the able men of business generally lead the others. 2934. Do you not think that such men as you have mentioned, the higher description of tradesmen and persons of a higher social position than tradesmen, since they are willing to be members of your vestry, if there were a municipal corporation for the whole of Westminster would be still more willing to be members of that body?—[Probably the reverse would be the case, as men such as Lord Overstone are interested in parish affairs.} 2935. You say there are many persons of that class who have paid special attention to the local wants of their own immediate neighbourhood; that is no doubt very much the case in rural districts, but do you think it is the case in a great town like the metropolis?—[Indeed it would be, for the great merit of vestries is that they attend to local business; a wider jurisdiction would lessen the feeling of authority. ] 2936. You think that the Corporation of Westminster would not have taken the measures which your vestry did to keep Leicester-square open;51 do you believe, from anything that you have heard, or any means of observation you possess, that the corporations of towns in general neglect the local interests of particular parts of those towns?—No, I cannot see that there is any comparison there. A corporation in a town has no regard to parochial interests; it is a corporation for the whole of the town. Take the case of Manchester, Liverpool, or any other large towns. There they all have an equal interest with regard to the whole borough; but if there were ten or eleven corporations in the metropolis, each corporation would attend to its own local interests. Take the case of a corporation composed of nine parishes; it is obvious that each parish would only have the ninth part of the power. Instead of having exclusive power to remedy evils existing in his own parish, a vestryman would only be able, in a municipal body, to give one vote in nine in favour of a resolution which he could carry in his own vestry if he were sitting there. 2937. Suppose this system existed, and that when anything was proposed for the benefit of one parish, all the others voted against it, would not the result be that none of the nine parishes would get what they wanted, whereas, if they followed a different plan, and the eight parishes voted in favour of the ninth parish, all the nine in their turn would get what they wanted?—If they acted wisely; but I am afraid one cannot calculate upon that. I am supposing the case of a great expense being required to be incurred in one parish in which the other parishes were not interested. They would then say, "Why should we burden the borough rate for such a purpose? With regard to any improvement that may be required in our own 51 See "Proposed Market at Leicester Square, "TheTimes, 27, 28, and 30 Apr., 1863, 6, 10, and 14.

488

Appendix B

locality, that is a thing which we must provide for when the time arrives; but at present it is an evil to us to have the borough rate burdened with a great expense in regard to a matter by which the borough is not benefited except as to a ninth part." 2938. Might not that happen in Manchester or Birmingham, or anywhere else, when something was proposed that would only benefit a particular quarter of the town?—/ think the comparison would not hold in the large towns, because the corporation there represents the whole of the body, and they would fee I bound to attend to every portion. I have no doubt, in every body where influential persons take a lead, they would either obstruct or encourage something in which there were antagonistic interests of other parties. 2939. If, in addition to local corporations, there was a general administrative body like the Boards of Works, and if there were the power of appeal which you have advocated, so that your parish could appeal to the general body against the adverse decision of the other eight parishes, would not that correct the evil of which you are apprehensive?—No doubt; any appellate jurisdiction, if it was wisely executed, would be of great service, whether as regards vestries or corporations. 2940. Who has the appointment of the officer of health to the vestry?—The vestry appoint him. 2941. They are bound to appoint an officer of health?—They do appoint him. 2942. Are they not obliged by law to do it?52—/ think they are; I am not quite sure without looking into the Act of Parliament. The law gives them the power to appoint the necessary officers; I think it does not define them particularly. The vestries of district Boards appoint such officers as they deem necessary, either in regard to character or number, and they assign to them such duties as they think fit. 2943. They are not necessarily obliged to appoint an officer of health?—/ think they are not necessarily obliged to do so. 2944. But they generally do?—An officer of health is appointed under the sanitary powers given by the Nuisances Removal Act, which are vested in the vestries. [Dangerfield affirmed his general impression that the appointments, while normally made, were not mandatory.] 2946. The salary is not fixed by law?—The salary is fixed by the vestry. 2947. From what you said I presume, that in your parish the vestry have a perfectly good understanding with the medical officer, and that so far as their legal powers reach, which you consider to be insufficient, they do carry out his sanitary recommendations; at all events, his reasonable ones?—That is so. 2948. Do you think that is the case generally in the metropolis; the contrary is 52

By sect. 132 of 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120, vestries and district boards "shall from time to time appoint" medical officers of health; by sect. 9 of 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 121, they might appoint a sanitary inspector.

Metropolitan Local Government

489

often asserted?—/ am aware that it is so stated, and it may be so in some instances; but I doubt very much indeed whether as a rule the vestries do not attend to the advice of their sanitary officers, so far as they have the means of doing so; I should be disposed to think that they did. 2949. Did you ever hear of the case of an officer of health of considerable eminence having bestirred himself very much for sanitary improvements, and having had his salary lowered in consequence?53—/ am not aware of that; I never heard of such a case. 4 June Robert Gladding54 [Again Mill opened a new line of questioning.] 3245. Your district comprises a large number of parishes besides Whitechapel? —Nine altogether. 3246. What is about the extent of the district?—Four hundred acres. 3247. What proportion does that form of the parliamentary district of the Tower Hamlets?—The Tower Hamlets measures, from the Isle of Dogs to Tottenham, seven miles. I do not know the acreage. Our district forms but a very small proportion of it. 3248. What is the proportion of the population of the Tower Hamlets to that of your district?—The population of the Tower Hamlets is betwen 500,000 and 700,000, and the population of Whitechapel district is 79,000. 3249. You are aware that by the new Reform Bill the Tower Hamlets would be divided into two districts?55—/ am aware of that. 3250. Consequently if the municipal district were to correspond with the parliamentary district, which is the idea, the present dimensions of the Tower Hamlets would be considerably reduced; should you still think that one-half of the Tower Hamlets was too large a district for a municipal corporation which represented it to be able to attend to the local interests of all parts of it?—/ am not particularly acquainted with the plans that are before the public. I do not know precisely what the proposition might be. Suppose that the proposition were that half of the Tower Hamlets should be formed into a municipality or corporation, which corporation should have the control of its police, the division of the district into parishes for parochial purposes, and into wards for ward motes, then it is fair to conceive that local self-government would still exist; otherwise it would not exist; it would be superseded, and the idea itself completely destroyed. 3251. What condition should you think necessary to render a municipal corporation elected by the ratepayers of one-half of the Tower Hamlets consistent with local government?—Nothing less than I have said. 53

An allusion to Edwin Lankester (see Q. 1833). A bookseller living in Whitechapel. 55 In clause 13 of "A Bill for the Redistribution of Seats." 54

490

Appendix B

3252. In what way would those different provisions that you have mentioned operate as conducive to local government; I do not clearly understand why it is you think that the division, for instance, into parishes and wards, would make the difference between local self-government and centralization?—In this way: you may have persons administering the affairs of others, or persons administering their own affairs, as in the case of the late vestry, and as in the case of some towns, I believe, in America, in New York, for instance, where persons administer their own affairs, and local self-government is perfect.'If you ascend a step above that, where persons have their affairs administered by those who represent them, and those representatives are sufficiently numerous in every part of the district to be known to all those whose affairs they conduct, those persons bear the responsibility of freemen in local self-government, and they are taught continually in a school of freedom; those who are about them are also influenced by them to the same excellent results. 3253. You think, then, that supposing half the Tower Hamlets were to be formed into a municipal corporation, and into a Parliamentary district also, and that in whatever division took place of the local duties of the metropolis, that municipal corporation were made one of the units of the division for all purposes, and supposing the numbers of the body were sufficient, and were elected locally so that every portion of the district might be represented in it; you think that such a constitution would be consistent with local government?—Yes; you are now supposing something very like the City of London, which forms in its area something like what half the Tower Hamlets would be. 3254.1 mean something like the City of London?—If you were to carry out the idea of the City of London, which has the management of its police, its parochial divisions and ward divisions, then, of course, I should be obliged to concede that local government would still exist. [After other subjects, the question of the administration of public health arose. ] 3310. Do you not think that Parliament would be more easily induced to grant such powers to a larger district than to a smaller one?—/ do not know why it should. William Henry Black56 [Mill intervened in questioning about the affairs of Whitechapel. ] 3355. Is any portion of the local administration of your district conducted by paid officers?—By surveyors, inspectors, and clerks. 3356. A considerable portion, I apprehend, is directly conducted by the committees into which your body is divided?—It is so. 56 William Henry Black (1808-72), antiquary and assistant keeper in the Public Record Office.

Metropolitan Local Government

491

3357. And the surveyors and other officers are appointed by the General Board of Trustees?—By the several Boards. Henry Sadler Mitchell51 [The questioning began on the effectiveness and efficiency of the trustees in Whitechapel, of whom Mitchell expressed a highly favourable opinion.] 3387. You say that there is a great attachment in your district to local government on its present scale, in preference to the larger scale of a municipality, and that great dissatisfaction would be felt if the smaller scale were exchanged for the larger?—Within the last four or five years I have especially devoted my attention to the subject, and endeavoured to obtain the opinion of all classes of men, and I believe that any attempt to interfere with the present system would be productive of the very greatest discontent. 3388. But I do not understand that the parochial system, properly speaking, exists in your district, because it is a combination of a considerable number of parishes?—To some extent the parochial system has been interfered with, and I think to that extent it has caused dissatisfaction. 3389. You think it would be more popular in your district if the parish of Whitechapel and the other parishes comprising the district were each of them to administer separately the affairs which are now administered by the joint body?—/ know that in Whitechapel it would be more popular if we were left entirely by ourselves. 3390. Some of the parishes are exceedingly small?—Yes. 3391. There are many very small parishes in the metropolis, especially in the City of London?—Yes; Sir William Fraser, in his book, says that the paving, and so on, has not improved during the last 10 years.58 He was evidently of opinion that since the introduction of the Boards the work had not been done so well; I can hardly say that, because I think there has been an improvement in all things; but I am certain with regard to the parish of Whitechapel, from the present information we have upon the subject, that we should have been better off if we had kept entirely to ourselves. 3392. Do you think that this is owing to the greater smallness of the district; that the smaller the district the better the pavement is attended to?—/ do; but of course there is a limit to that. 3393. The parishes, however, are extremely unequal; and you can hardly say that sizes so very different can be equally adapted to be the unit of local government?—/ think that parishes may be too large; I think the parish of St. Pancras is too large, and the parish of Marylebone. 3394. You think, with regard to such a thing as paving, that it had better be 57

Vestry clerk of Whitechapel. William Augustus Fraser, London Self-Governed (London: Harvey, 1866).

58

492

Appendix B

conducted on a scale much smaller than the parish of Marylebone, or the parish of St. Pancras?—Yes. 3395. Do you think so with regard to all the duties performed by your Board, or only with regard to some of them?—/ think that all the duties would be done better by a more moderate-sized parish; I am well acquainted with St. Pancras, and I think it is too large; a considerable portion of it, however, consists of fields. 3396. Do you think it is as easy to find competent persons to perform those duties in a small district as in a large one?—Quite so. 3397. Do you think that they are equally under the public eye in a small district; do you think that public attention is not more likely to be concentrated on the operations carried on, when the district is larger than an ordinary parish?—No; I think it is better when they are carried on on a small scale, provided it is not too small. There is always a local press which exercises great control, as you have pointed out in your book.59 If we had no local Board we should have no local press, because there would not be sufficient information to be given; but having a local press, the eye of the ratepayers is continually directed to the public affairs of the parish. 3398. You have a local press for the parish of Whitechapel?—It takes in two or three districts; it is published in Whitechapel, and it reports all proceedings of the Boards.60 3399. Do you not think it desirable that there should be a considerable admixture of different classes of society in the local government bodies?—On the last occasion of choosing an overseer we elected the magistrate; but he said, "I cannot attend to the duties." If you choose merchants, and men with four or five thousand a-year, to go on to the Boards, they would not attend to them. 3400. If they do not attend in a parish, do you not think they would attend in a larger body?—/ do not think they would. 3401. Do you not think that a more important class of persons take part in the local business of the City of London than in the vestries?—Not in the Common Council; I do not think that the Common Council is composed of a better class of men than the trustees of the parish of Whitechapel, having regard to the fact that the City of London is a more important place than Whitechapel. I have not seen any business conducted at any Boards better than it is conducted by the trustees of Whitechapel; I have read the reports in the debates of the House of Commons, and without claiming for the trustees as much learning, I do claim for them quite as much orderly proceeding. 3402. From your knowledge of other vestries and local Boards generally, do you think you can give the same degree of praise to all or most of them?—/ 59

Presumably an allusion to Considerations on Representative Government, CW, XIX, 542, which points out that the local is less powerful than the national press. Perhaps the East London Observer (1857-1928).

Metropolitan Local Government

493

frequently read the reports of the St. Pancras Board, and I think it is quite as orderly as any assembly in the kingdom. 3403. Do you think that there is as much variety of intelligence, and that large views are as much brought to bear on local affairs, as would be the case if those who take part in those affairs were of a more mixed character than they are now?—It would not do to have all philosophers; but I believe, for the work that is to be done, the men who compose those Boards are the best that can be found. 3404. There are no other class of men, I apprehend, that could be found to discharge the bulk of the duties; but would it not be desirable that there should be a certain proportion of persons not so purely local in their ideas?—/ think that the Boards are always composed of a mixed class; I have looked through the lists of Marylebone and St. Pancras, and I find that those Boards are composed of a class of men who, from my knowledge of them, would conduct the business of the parish in the best possible way. 3405. But Marylebone and St. Pancras are large parishes, approaching in magnitude the proposed municipalities, and certainly in Marylebone there is a much greater mixture of classes in the vestry than there commonly is in the vestries in London; do you think that the same character could be given to the other vestries generally?—Speaking with regard to my own parish, I think you could not have a better class of men to do the business. 3406. You do not think that it could be improved by persons of a different class being combined with them?—/ do not think they would take the trouble, because a great deal of the business of the parish is managed by Committees; and my experience of men possessing large incomes is, that they would not take the trouble to attend. 3407. They do take the trouble to attend in Marylebone?—/ cannot say in Marylebone; they are a highly respectable class of men as a rule. You heard Mr. Cladding's evidence in that respect.61 I entirely concur in what he said, and I believe the work is done as well as it can be done. Robert Freeman62 [General questioning led to discussion of the membership of the vestry, Freeman being of opinion that the proposed centralization would make such service less attractive.} 3466. I understand, from your description of the composition of your vestry, that it contains a very considerable number of persons of a superior class?—Yes; 61 At Q. 3128, Gladding had averred that, of the 58 members of the Whitechapel Board of Works, 52 were tradesmen, but that "there are not more than 16 out of the 52 who are not men of property distinct from their trades; and the rest, so far as I know, are respectable tradesmen." 62 Member of Kensington vestry, and its representative on the Metropolitan Board of Works.

494

Appendix B

that is naturally owing to the circumstance that there are an unusual number of persons of leisure and cultivation who inhabit the district of Kensington. 3467.1 think you said that it would not be possible in poor districts to obtain the same class of persons?—No, I think not. 3468. If that be the case, do you not think that if geographical circumstances admitted of Kensington being combined with other parishes which have not this advantage in the same degree, these poorer parishes, as well as Kensington, would get the advantage of that selection of persons of a more cultivated class, who now give their services to Kensington vestry?—[There would not be mutual benefit; Kensington would pay the penalty, while such areas as Fulham and Hammersmith would gain the reward. Furthermore, those now serving would not be willing to go farther afield, and they would be frightened out of service by the term "alderman."} 3469. The dignity of alderman is not very popular in your parish?—It would be if the Corporation of London governed the whole of the metropolis, and you had a real alderman; but if you multiplied municipalities, and had aldermen as thick as blackberries, it would be a mockery and a delusion rather than a compliment. [Only if the dignities were real would they be respected.} 3472. You would reserve those dignities, perhaps, for the general body that would administer the concerns of the whole metropolis?—If the City of London had been wise enough to open its arms and take in the whole metropolis, so that there should be one Lord May or, and an efficient number of aldermen, one to each district, then there would be something in it; but as to having 11 municipalities, with a multitude of aldermen, I feel sure it would not induce the better class of our population to join the vestry or the municipality. 11 June Jonathan Salter63 [Mill opened a new line of questioning, the preceding evidence having covered a variety of matters local to St. Pancras.} 3826. Yours being a very large parish, and having so much local business of various kinds, probably your attention has been drawn to the subject of the municipal government of London, and you have, perhaps, formed some opinion as to how far it is defective or admits of improvement, if so, will you state what are your opinions on that subject?—/ think, as far as St. Pancras is concerned, we have, to a certain extent, a municipal government; that is to say, we have a very large area, and have a large number of representatives, and, I think, we do our work in such a manner that we are, to a certain extent, a municipality. I know it is 63

Chairman of the Board of Works of St. Pancras district.

Metropolitan Local Government

495

the opinion of some gentlemen that it would be much to their advantage if there were aldermen and so on, but I question if a man who is really anxious for the welfare of his neighbours cares whether he is called a vestryman or an alderman. 3827. You are acquainted, no doubt, with the plan of municipal government for London, which has been drawn up chiefly by some vestrymen of Westminster?—/ have seen it. 3828. Have you any remarks to make on that plan?—/ have nothing particular to say in favour of it. 3829. Have you anything to say against it?—/ do not wish to say anything against it. 3830. If your experience suggests any objections to it, I have no doubt the Committee would like to hear them?—As far as regards the area that we have under our control, I do not think it would be any advantage; doubtless there are localities, that are not managed as we profess to manage our affairs, where it would be an advantage; what I feel is this: that I should object to our having a larger jurisdiction saddled upon us with a body who would not understand our business as thoroughly as we do. 3831. Your body, I conceive, is a kind of specimen of what the municipal governments of the districts of London would be under the proposed plan, because its district is very large and populous, and is on a scale, not indeed quite so great, but approaching the size proposed?—Yes. 3832. I think the only district of importance which would be added to yours under the proposed plan, would be the parish of Bloomsbury ?—Yes. 3833. Do you see any disadvantage in the junction of the parish of Bloomsbury in the same municipal body with yourselves?—Some portions of Bloomsbury very closely abut on us, but if Bloomsbury were attached to St. Pancras, speaking in a parochial sense, it would naturally be anxious to return a large number of members, and they would not be so well acquainted with the wants and requirements of St. Pancras as the St. Pancras authorities at present are. 3834. But, no doubt, in any municipal body, the members who represent particular wards or districts, would be those chiefly consulted in regard to the wants of their own districts, except when the subject was one to be decided on general principles common to all, so that it is not probable that the unacquaintance of the people of Bloomsbury with the wants of St. Pancras would be any damage to St. Pancras; in fact, that objection, if it applies at all, would apply even to so large a district as St. Pancras, because it is impossible that the inhabitants of every part of St. Pancras can be well acquainted with the wants of every other part; is not that so?—There is an interchange of communication among the representatives of the vestry; for instance, the outer section is represented by its members who meet the representatives of the others, and so they become acquainted with each other's wants.

496

Appendix B

3835. Would not the same thing take place between the representatives of Bloomsbury and St. Pancras if they were united in one body?—/ do not see why it should not. 3836. As I understand, the vestry of St. Pancras is composed of a considerable mixture of various classes of society?—Yes. 3837. In that respect, it is more a specimen of what would exist under the municipal government proposed, than a specimen of the municipal government which exists throughout the metropolis at present; do you not think that if the municipalities were usually on a scale equal to, or somewhat greater than St. Pancras, instead of being as they are, in most cases, much smaller, there would probably be a considerably greater mixture of classes, and that persons would be obtained of a better position in society, and better general instruction?—/ quite agree with that; I think the area should be sufficiently large to entitle it to members who would represent all bodies; I think it might be an advantage that small areas should be increased to larger ones. 3838. You think that the area of St. Pancras is sufficiently large?—Yes. 3839. Although you do not think that some moderate extension of it would be decidedly objectionable?—/ confess I cannot see the general advantage that would be derived from it. 3840. Would there not be an advantage in the junction of a district such as yours, where persons are willing to serve in the municipal body, who have more than an average education and position; do you not think that by the junction of such districts with other districts that have not the advantage of generally obtaining so good a class of men, those other districts would also obtain the same advantage as St. Pancras, to a certain extent, now possesses?—Unfortunately, men of scientific attainments seldom trouble themselves much with these affairs, even in municipalities. 3841. But do you not think that they are more likely to do so where the districts are large?—/ think that the vestry of St. Pancras stands on a par with the Common Council of the City of London, which is the greatest municipality, I suppose, in the world, consisting of men of all shades and degrees. 3842. Do you not think that that is the sort of municipal council which it is desirable to endeavour to obtain in every part of the metropolis?—/ must say that, as far as St. Pancras is concerned, I do not think it would be an advantage. 3843. Because you consider that, owing to its extent, it possesses, in a great degree, the advantage which it is desired to confer on other parts?—Yes. No doubt, smaller areas would be improved by having other areas added to them; but I think we have as large a machine as can be properly worked. I think the inhabitants generally would suffer, if the area was made larger. I think they would not have that ready means of communicating with each other, which is so necessary in all local matters.

Metropolitan Local Government

497

3844. You think that the extent of the Parliamentary boroughs would be too great?—/ think so. 3845. You are aware that in the proposed plan the districts would not be so large as the present Parliamentary boroughs?—No. 3846. Your parish would be included along with Bloomsbury, in a district subtracted from two Parliamentary boroughs, and Tower Hamlets would be divided?—Yes. If you extended our area we should require two medical men. I question whether there is not sufficient employment at present for one with a staff under him; whether it is not better to have one head, with subordinates under him, than two; one for one division, and another for the other. I think there would be clashing. 3847. Do you think your district so large that one medical man, even with the necessary number of subordinates, could not superintend it?—/ think not. I am speaking in a sanitary point of view, as regards drainage. I am referring to the medical officer of health now, not to the persons who attend to the sick poor. 3848. Still smaller districts would be required for that?—Yes; we have medical officers for that purpose in each district. 3849. Has your Board generally a good understanding with the sanitary officers; do you go on smoothly with them?—Pretty amicably. I have known occasions when a little ill feeling has arisen when the sanitary department has called for something to be done on the spur of the moment; but, as a rule, they generally agree. 3850. You have sometimes thought that the recommendations went beyond the necessity of the case?—/ have had no occasion to think so; some members have; but as a rule the sanitary measures are carried out. 3851. As a rule the recommendations of the sanitary officers are carried into effect by the vestry?—Yes; with perhaps some trifling exceptions now and then. 3852. Is there any improvement that you would suggest, in the way of increase of power to the local Boards, or any new functions that you would entrust to them; would you give them, for instance, any power with regard to water or gas?—That is a difficult question. I think the House of Commons should step in and settle that question. Where money is invested by various companies, it is rather difficult to step in and tamper with the subject. 3853. The House of Commons alone could give such power, and could alone determine what course should be taken with regard to existing companies; but have you not formed any decided opinion on that subject?—No. John Richard Collins64 [Collins admitted that the title of "alderman" was attractive to him, and that if the office of mayor were provided locally it would be actively sought.] 64

A chemist and member of St. Pancras vestry.

498

Appendix B

3995. Do you not think that that would be still more the case if the area of jurisdiction were increased to a certain extent?—That, as a general principle, would be the case, but St. Pancras is a large city; as it is, there are 200,000 inhabitants in it, and probably in 20 years there will be 300,000. 3996. Do you not think that if the metropolis were divided into municipal districts about the size of St. Pancras, containing 200,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, it would be an improvement?—Yes; and I think the governing bodies would have great importance in the public eye. [The questioning turned to the matter of annual elections, which Collins opposed. ] 4043. Do you not think that, even if the elections were annual, the same persons would generally be re-elected, unless they had shown themselves incapable?— Very likely. I have been elected for the fourth time. Unless there is any special objection, I think the members who are at all useful would be retained. [Collins averred that the costs of election in wider constituencies, such as that of mailing circulars, would deter people from standing.} 4051. Would it not be necessary, if there were various candidates, to send circulars to the ratepayers?—/ think they would do so. When we fought by parties we did so; we spent a great deal of money. A contested election used to cost, I daresay, £700 or £800 on the two sides; we were obliged to spend a great deal of money; we had to bring up the ladies in carriages. [The suggestion was made by the Chair that voting papers would reduce trouble and expense; Collins disclaimed experience of them.} 4057. The vestry is not elected by voting papers ?—Yes, when there is a contest; but there must be personal attendance. [The voting paper is folded, so in effect it is a secret ballot.] 4059. If the papers were collected from house to house, it would not be necessary to bring up the ladies in carriages ?—There would be no necessity for it. 14 June William Clark65 [Mill returned to one of the many topics covered in Clark's evidence.] 4243.1 understood you to say, that there was great difficulty in inducing persons to accept the office of vestryman?—There is a difficulty in getting what is called the more wealthy classes to serve; they come into town in the morning and leave it in the afternoon, and even if they were elected, I do not think that they are so 65

Member of the vestry of St. George's in the East.

Metropolitan Local Government

499

conversant with the wants and necessities of the parish as the persons who now form the bulk of the vestrymen. 4244. Do you not think that it is an advantage to a body of that sort to have a mixture of various classes of persons; some of the class you have mentioned, and perhaps a greater number of the classes who are now willing to be vestrymen?—/ should be glad to see it so, but I see no hope, make the qualification what you will, of inducing them to serve; I have tried it over and over again; we have had one or two large sugar refiners members of the Board, but they did not stay long; they very rarely attend even when they become members. 4245. Do you not think that if that district was larger, and if the vestrymen were more in the public eye, and more commented upon by the press, if more distinction could be obtained by serving the public in that way, there would be less difficulty experienced in inducing persons of a superior class to serve with others in the vestry?—/ have great doubt about it. The same complaint is made with regard to the corporation of the City of London, that the great merchants will not come forward; and certainly if honour and dignity would induce them to come forward, the office of Lord Mayor of the City of London might be expected to do so; but the same complaint is made even there. [Amongst other issues, the reasons for occasionally not accepting the lowest bids for public works were discussed.] 4363. If any person's offer was rejected while the tender of some one else, though higher, was accepted, would the person who made the lower tender have a right to challenge the decision, and demand that the committee which rejected the offer should give its reasons?—If he chose to do so the committee would not hesitate to give their reasons. William Francis Jebb66 [The interrogation settled on the inconveniences of the irregular boundaries of the parishes of St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster.} 4475. Does not St. Margaret's reach into the middle of Kensington Gardens?— We have no jurisdiction there; but I think the boundary of the parishes runs along by the Serpentine. 4476.1 believe there is a stone with the initials of your parish on it in the midst of Kensington Gardens, not far from the Round Pond?—/ believe there is. 18 June Dr. William Tiffin lliff1 [The witness described the filthy habitations of the coster-mongers and even lower classes in Newington.] ^William Francis Jebb (1828-90), lawyer, became clerk to the Westminster Board of Works in 1867. 67 Medical Officer of Health to the Newington vestry.

500

Appendix B

4821. What is the condition of the common lodging houses in your parish, to which the recent Act applies?68—They are in a very good condition; we have only one set in Kent-street; I was over them all about a month ago, when they had received their cleansing, and were in a very good condition; I only wish the poor as a rule had places to live in like them. 4822. Have you ever taken into consideration the expediency of extending to other houses, the houses of the respectable poor, any of the powers which already exist in regard to the very lowest class of lodging houses?69—Yes; the Association of the Officers of Health have embodied that in a memorandum submitted to the Home Secretary, suggesting that they should have some power over the rooms.10 25 June Daniel Bin11 [In discussing the actual practice and qualifications for election to the Metropolitan Board of Works, Bin distinguished between the requirement for Parliament in the Reform Act of 1832, "a male person of full age," and for the Board, merely "a person." He then said he thought he knew who would have been first elected to the Board had there been an open election.] 5190. Do you think it would have been "a male person of full age"?—/ think it would. [After having dwelt on the quality of the vestrymen, the questioning turned to expenses of local administration.} 5211. You said that some years ago there was considerable agitation in the parish owing to the dissatisfaction with regard to local management as it existed at that time, but that this dissatisfaction having ceased, the agitation subsided; is the reason of that, that the dissatisfaction not having been originally well grounded has died away of itself, or has the local management improved since that time?—/ think the local management has been very much improved since that time. 5212. In what respect does the local management differ from what it was at that time?—It is much more systematic. The officers have a differently constituted body to supervise them; the vestry which sits fortnightly, but which formerly was only called together as the church-wardens and overseers chose to call them. As an illustration of my statement, I can only say that a gentleman who used to agitate 68

Mill is probably referring to "A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to the Public Health," which had been introduced into the Commons on 6 June (PP, 1866, IV, 375-98). Clause 32 enlarges the powers of the sanitary authorities to inspect, cleanse, and ventilate the common lodging houses. It received royal assent on 7 August. *®By virtue of the Common Lodging Houses Act of 1851. 70 "Suggestions, by the Medical Officers of Health of the Metropolis, for Amendments which they Deem Desirable, in the Existing Sanitary Acts," App. 9 of the "Seventh Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council," PP, 1865, XXVI, 531. 71 Died 1878, a draper, vestry clerk of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark.

Metropolitan Local Government

501

the parish a good deal, and was a member of the vestry, has retired from it; and he told me a few days ago that his vocation had gone; that he had nothing to find fault with now, and therefore he preferred quietly to retire. 5213. Was the agitation that previously existed all antecedent to the Metropolis Local Management Act, or did it go on under that Act during the first year?—It went on after the Act came into operation with regard to the appointment of vestrymen; but, as I said, from that time it has gradually subsided and become less and less. 5214. The improvement that you consider to have taken place, the more systematic management, dates from the Local Management Act, I suppose?—/ think so. 5215. Or has it been introduced by degrees?—[The Act greatly increased the functions of the vestry, and the consequent agitation arose over the patronage connected with the position of overseer. With the present low turnover in the office, there has been less agitation; perhaps also there are fewer subjects to agitate about. ] 5216. Now that there is no agitation there appears to be some difficulty in inducing people to offer themselves as candidates even for the vestry?—[There is no shortage of persons to serve as vestrymen; there is, however, little need for candidature. People are not anxious to be in office, but they perform well when elected. ] 5217. They are elected more by a spontaneous choice of the parishioners than by their offering themselves?—Yes; to a very large extent it is so. 5218. Have you ever considered whether an enlargement of the area of local management would be desirable; whether a larger district than a single parish— not a very large one, which I believe yours is not—might not be advantageously managed by the same body, and whether in that case it would not be likely that you would more easily obtain persons of education and position to fill the office of vestrymen, or whatever office corresponded to it?—/ think, perhaps, it would have been advantageous had the Legislature made the districts somewhat larger than they are at present; but the vestry that I happen to be connected with does not view with any sympathy the project for consolidating the whole metropolis; say into three large municipal bodies. 5219. No one has proposed so small a number as you mention. The proposition which involves the fewest, is that of making the municipal bodies correspond with the Parliamentary boroughs;72 in that case yours would be extended to the whole of Southwark. What would be the particular nature of the objections the vestry would feel to such an extension as that?—/ am not prepared to say that the vestry has any feeling of objection to it. 72 That proposed by the Commissioners reporting on the Corporation of the City of London in 1854; see No. 93, n7.

502

Appendix B

5220. You only think that they are well satisfied with the system as it is, and that they do not think it requires much amendment?—They appear to be perfectly well satisfied with the system as it is working at present. 5221. Do you not yourself think that the acting on a large scale on the one hand, would produce a greater disposition on the part of persons of position to become members of the body; and on the other, that it would give greater publicity, that the management would take place more in the eyes of the public, and that being conducted on a larger scale it would be possible to subdivide business and confine each part to persons of higher qualifications than are obtained, or can be obtained at present on a small scale?—/ doubt if persons of higher qualifications would be obtained for the position by making the area in our locality co-extensive with the Parliamentary borough. 5222. You think that the greater importance of the duties, and their being more in the public eye would not be an additional inducement to persons to offer themselves and take the trouble?—They would have the same duties considerably extended; I do not think they would be rightly described as more important. 5223. They would be the same duties, but the amount of duty, responsibility, and power which the persons so elected would exercise would be greater, owing to the greater extent of the district?—/ do not think that a better class of persons would be induced to come forward by an enlargement of the area. I ground that upon my knowledge with regard to the Metropolitan Board itself. I think that that which is a larger body than these bodies to which you have been referring, would not, if there were a general election by the ratepayers elicit the candidature of persons better qualified than the present vestrymen. [Bin reaffirmed this judgment in response to other questions.} 5231. You would not see any inconvenience in persons of the same class as now form your vestry, serving along with persons of another class in a larger body?—At present the persons who are elected by our parish to be vestrymen arrange their own time of meeting. They meet at six o' clock in the evening for their own convenience, not for the convenience of their officers. I should be glad (I know they cannot do it, and therefore I do not ask it nor expect it) if they could meet in the ordinary business hours, that we might get through the business as other professional persons do; but with regard to our own parish if we were merged into a municipality that met in the middle of the day, I doubt whether we should not, to some extent, be virtually unrepresented, because those who would be elected would probably not be in a position to give the attendance which they now give at six o'clock in the evening. 5232. Do you think that any such body as that would establish hours of meeting that would necessarily exclude a considerable number of those who would probably be, and certainly ought to be, elected to form part of the body; do you not

Metropolitan Local Government

503

think that such a course would be very unpopular, and that the members would not be elected again if they established such unreasonable rules?—I find that some metropolitan vestries which are in a very different position from St. George-theMartyr, Southwark, are able to meet in the middle of the day. Inasmuch as I do not know exactly what would be the limits of any one of the new bodies to be formed, I cannot say what hour would be reasonable for them to meet. I merely say that if they were to adopt greatly different hours from those which obtain among ourselves, the present members of the vestry would be unable to attend in consequence of their own avocations. Henry Bidgood13 [The questioning dwelt on matters pertaining to election.} 5323. Have you turned your attention to whether it would be desirable that the area of management should be extended beyond the parish: do you not think that even with those functions which you propose for giving additional publicity to the election there will still be less interest taken in becoming a member of the board of management for the parish only than there would be in becoming a member of a smaller body for the whole City of Westminster?—/ do not think that the difference would be very great, but I think certainly that Westminster is not too large for one municipal election. It has been a favourite notion of mine for the last 20 years. 5324. The whole of Westminster?—Yes; after all I think it is not larger than Marylebone. 5325. If there were a greater unwillingness to become a candidate for the larger district than for the smaller, still the fact that you would not need so many persons to offer themselves for Westminster as you would need for all the parishes into which Westminster is divided, would in itself be an advantage, and would give a greater choice of members ?—Yes; I think that 48 men for our parish is too large a number, and the thing ceases to have that honour attached to it which it would have if the vestry was composed of half a score or a dozen persons. [The greater office would be more sought after. ] 5327. You think that if 48 or double that number were elected for the whole of Westminster it might be felt to be a considerable honour to be one of them?—/ think that 48 men could manage Westminster very well. [Bidgood expressed himself in favour of voting papers.} 5346. The board of guardians are elected by voting papers, are they not?—Not with us. 73 Vestryman of St. James's parish, Westminster, and its representative on the Metropolitan Board of Works.

504

Appendix B

28 June George Henry Drew74 [Mill started a new subject for this witness.] 5598. Do you think that your district is as large a one as can be advantageously managed by the same body, or have you turned your attention to any of the proposals that have been made for forming larger districts, in one of which your district would be included, and having a municipal administration for that larger district elected in the same way as at present, by the ratepayers ?—/ do not think the present body could with advantage administer a larger district than it does now. 5599. It would require a more numerous body?—Rather a body of better capacity, 5600. Do you think it would be likely if a larger district were embraced in its sphere of operations, that persons of superior capacity would be more disposed than at present to act upon the Board?—/ think there is no doubt of it. 5601. So that on the whole you think there would be probably a more capable administration for the larger district, although the present one may be adequate to carry on its operations in a tolerable manner?—/ think probably that would be so; whether it would be desirable or not I do not say. 5602. Have you formed any opinion whether it would be desirable?—/ think so far as the parish is concerned that it is very well administered by the men who now administer its affairs. It is much to their advantage to have to administer the affairs of the parish in the way they do. 5603. In what respect to their advantage ?—It is an advantage to them to have to administer their own affairs. 5604. Do you mean that their affairs are better attended to in consequence, or that it is an exercise to them?—It is an exercise to them; whether any larger body with a larger area might administer the affairs of the larger area better, I have not formed any opinion. 5605. The exercise of mind would be still more valuable in that case?—But in that case you would not have the same class of men to administer the affairs of the district. 5606. You would have some of the same class and others of a superior class, would you not?—Not knowing what the mode of election would be, I cannot say. 5607. Supposing the election was by the ratepayers, as at present, in different wards it would naturally happen that the Board would have a more mixed composition, and do you not think that the acting in concert with persons possessing still higher qualifications than those who now act, would be a great advantage, and that the exercise of those functions would be a greater means of improvement to their own minds than they have at present?—Without doubt. I think that is what we want in the vestry ofBermondsey; an addition of persons of a superior class. They are now apt to be led by one or two men who have rather more 74

George Henry Drew (1817-1906), solicitor, vestry clerk ofBermondsey parish.

Metropolitan Local Government

505

knowledge of public affairs than the rest, and not always, perhaps, in the right direction. 5 July Dugald Edward Cameron15 [Mill was the first questioner after the Chair's identifying queries.] 5619. Have you been a candidate to represent St. Pancras at the Metropolitan Board?—Yes, at the last election in June. 5620. Are there any circumstances connected with that election which you wish to state?—The peculiarity of the election, if it can be so called, is this: the last member retired by rotation; and 12 months previously to his retirement, promises from individual members of the vestry were extracted before it could possibly be ascertained who were the candidates, in order that the members of the vestry might make a selection. 5621. This was at the election previous to that at which you were a candidate?—[Josiah Wilkinson, an eminently valuable member from 1856 to 1864, found to his surprise when seeking re-election that successful solicitations had been made to individual members of the vestry to support another candidate. ] [Wilkinson had served on the Metropolitan Board. ] 5623. Were any public grounds of opposition to Mr. Josiah Wilkinson stated?—Not any public grounds. The most public ground that I can recollect was very frivolous, namely, that all the honours should not be centred in any one individual for any lengthened period; that, however eminent and desirable his services were, a change, whether for the better or worse, should take place. 5624. Do you think that, on that occasion at any rate, the election was carried against him rather by a private intrigue than by a fair public opposition?— Completely so, because several members of the vestry who had signed that paper, told me afterwards that they had little idea that they had pledged themselves to give their votes, that they only intended to solicit Mr. Taylor to come forward, not that they had pledged themselves to vote for him in opposition to Mr. Wilkinson. In fact, great misapprehension prevailed on the subject. It was supposed that because the term of office of Mr. Wilkinson was about to expire, he would not be a candidate for the next election. 5625. Do you suppose that any undue influence was used, or that any undue influence was used to induce these vestrymen to give their promises?—/ am not prepared to say that. 5626. You were a candidate last June for the purpose of counteracting this system?—[Knowing he would be defeated, Cameron wished to expose the practice.] 5621. You think that the sitting representative of your vestry in the Board of 75

Solicitor and member of St. Pancras vestry.

506

Appendix B

Works made use of his position as a means of canvassing for re-election?—The member of the Board of Works is not necessarily a member of the vestry, but he is generally so, and by means of contact with other members he has, in that way, the opportunity of pursuing that system. 5628. Should you propose, with a view of obviating occurrences of this kind, any change in the mode of electing members of the Board of Works ?—/ think that the election is very unsatisfactory in one sense, and the ratepayers from whom such large sums are paid for the metropolis should have vested in them the right of election. It has been said that the expense would be so great as to prevent any gentleman seeking election, but I cannot see that that is a sufficient objection; because the expense for the election of vestryman is nothing, and the election of a member to the Metropolitan Board of Works might take place at the same time, and the expense come out of the same parochial funds; the members of the vestry have no expense whatever to incur, and if the election to the Metropolitan Board was under the same management, the objection as to expense would not apply. 5629. You think that the ratepayers might vote for the vestrymen and for the member to the Metropolitan Board of Works at the same time?—/ think that might be effected. 5630. In what way should you recommend the votes to be given; by voting papers or by a poll?—/ think voting papers would be preferable to the present system of electing vestrymen; very few persons take the slightest interest in the election at present and it is limited to a very few persons; any names that 10 or 12 gentlemen may select are sent to the electors, and when the election takes place, perhaps 20 or 30 persons decide who shall represent the different wards of the parish. 5631. Do you think that if the ratepayers were called upon to nominate a member of the Board of Works at the same time as the vestry, a greater and more general interest would be felt by them in the elections ?—/ think so, for this reason, an election for one-third of the vestrymen takes place annually, but the election for a member to the Metropolitan Board of Works would only take place triennially. I think it would bring the ratepayers, in some measure, to look to the importance of the representation in both Boards, the vestry and the Metropolitan Board. 5632. You find that the interest taken by the ratepayers in the election of vestrymen at present is not great?—[After considerable activity in 1856 there has been a great decline in interest, though at the last election there was a general desire for improvement.] 563 3. If I understand you, a kind of reaction has set in now, and a greater interest is taken in the elections ?—Not among the ratepayers, but amongst the members of the vestry themselves; they would like to elevate their position by getting a superior class of men among them. 5634. Do you ascribe that want of interest, on the part of the ratepayers, merely to the fact that the novelty has worn off, or to mere general apathy and

Metropolitan Local Government

507

indifference, or is it because they are satisfied with the way in which the parish is managed?—/ think it arises from apathy and indifference, and the trouble that it takes to record their votes, by going to the polling booth, or any other place appointed for the reception of votes. 5635. Do you think if the district were enlarged, if, instead of a parish, it were a municipality, embracing, for instance, the whole of a Parliamentary district, that there would be a greater interest in the election felt by the ratepayers?—// is difficult to answer that question by anticipation; if there were a popular out-of-doors election, or anything of that description, I think the same class would occupy positions in the municipality that they do now in almost all the vestries. 5636. What means would you suggest by which a greater interest could be excited, or a superior class of persons could be induced to become candidates?— By mean of papers left from house to house, as in the case of the guardians. 5637. Would you propose that as a means of inducing a greater number of ratepayers to vote?—Yes, I think it would have that effect. 5638. Do you not think that there would be some danger that those who did not sufficiently care about the subject to vote at all unless the voting paper was sent to them at their houses, would be willing, if it were sent to them, and they could vote without trouble, to vote almost for anybody who asked them?—No, I do not know that would be the case; I think they would be more likely to communicate with their immediate friends, and ask them what they proposed doing with reference to the election, so that the subject would be more ventilated. 5639. You think that leaving voting papers at the house with lists of candidates would excite conversation, and so create a greater interest in the subject, and that people would be better able to concert together?—/ think that would take place. 5640. You think, perhaps, that under the present system the generality of the ratepayers never have their attention called to the fact that there is an election at all?—That is the case in our parish; there is a ratepayers' association in every ward; they call public meetings of the ratepayers, but the apathy is so great that not more than 100 persons ever attend any gathering of that description, and, perhaps, two-thirds of those are not ratepayers. 5641. Do you think that leaving a mere notice of election, with a list of candidates, at the house of every ratepayer, would have the same effect in drawing attention to the subject as leaving a voting paper?—You must send a list of candidates with the voting paper. 5642. Suppose that the voting were to take place in the way in which it takes place now, but that lists of candidates were left at the houses of all the ratepayers, so as to make them aware more certainly than they are now that an election is coming on, or that the election is to be contested, do you think that this would produce the same effect on their minds in exciting an interest in the subject, and inducing them to ask questions about it, as if voting papers were left at their houses to be filled up?—/ think not nearly so much interest, because it is even a trouble to

508

Appendix B

them on their way to the City to go and give their vote, and perhaps if they all did so in the morning, there would be such a rush that the poll could not be taken sufficiently quickly, and they would object to spend a quarter or half-an-hour of their time; the poll concludes at four o'clock, so that on the return of those persons, even if they desired to vote, they would not be able to do so. 5643. Many persons are prevented now by the inconvenience of voting, which would be removed by means of voting papers?—That is my opinion. 5644. Suppose that instead of a single parish there were a municipality, co-extensive with one of the Parliamentary districts, should you think that this would be an inducement to a superior class of persons in education or social position to become candidates beyond what can be expected at present?—/ am hardly sufficiently acquainted with municipalities generally, but I think in such a parish as St. Pancras, where most of the gentlemen are mere residents in the squares and places of that description, having their business elsewhere, they would not care much about forming part of a municipality, any more than they do about becoming vestrymen; yet I think it would be desirable that something of a character should be given to the office beyond that of a mere vestryman; it would perhaps have a beneficial effect. There is an idea about a vestry that is not very palatable to the minds of people in the metropolis; and I think something might be done to raise its character. 5645. You think greater dignity might be given to the office?—/ think so. The term "vestryman" conveys an imperfect idea of the duties under the Metropolis Local Management Act. 5646. Possibly also more extensive duties might be confided to a municipality than would be entrusted to a vestry, although the duties of the vestry are now considerable ?—They are quite beyond the original intention; the sewers, lighting, and other sanitary matters, are quite beyond anything that was intended for vestry purposes. 5647. If municipal bodies were created for districts equal to, or nearly equal to, Parliamentary districts, are there any additional powers which you think might be advantageously entrusted to those municipalities?—/ think if they could have the control of gas and water it would be an advantage; and I think also that they ought to have the rates arising from carriage duties; in fact, if it be a municipality in reality it ought to be so, I venture to think, as regards taxation and the means of support. 5648. Supposing there were, in addition to these municipalities, a general body for the whole metropolis, either constituted on the basis of the City of London, with its jurisdiction extended and its constitution enlarged, or on the basis of the Board of Works, should you think that these duties, with regard to gas and water supply, would be better entrusted to the separate municipalities, or to the general one?—/ think to the general one. 5649. Are there any other changes that you would suggest, from your

Metropolitan Local Government

509

experience of the local management of the metropolis?—/ have not considered any. 5650. Is there any other statement you wish to make?—No. John Layton76 [ The witness complained of the legal delays preventing rapid enforcement of the Nuisances Removal Act. ] 5761. What would you recommend?—That the first order should be final; that it should not be necessary to summon a man to show cause why he has not complied with the order, since its tendency can only be delay. 5762. Would you empower the vestry itself to give the order?—No, the magistrate; but one order should be sufficient. 5763. You would have the order of the magistrates to abate the nuisance made compulsory)?77—Peremptory in all cases. 5764. If the person to whom the order was given did not remove the nuisance, the order should at once be enforced?—Yes, and we have ample powers. 5765. You have powers sufficient to enforce the order of the magistrates, if you were allowed to do so, without summoning the man to show cause?—Yes; I think, however, that it would be found necessary to increase the staff of magistrates. Recently, under all these Acts of Parliament, the magistrates have been almost overwhelmed. Many compensation cases under Railway Acts come before them, and so with small tenancies under £10, and many other things; their jurisdiction has become so extended that physically it is utterly impossible for them to carry it out. I am sure that no gentlemen can assist us more readily than the magistrates at Clerkenwell and their clerks, but I am compelled to make out all my own summonses, and take them there cut and dried, and to draw out my own orders. 5766. Do you consider these duties to be properly imposed upon the magistrates?—/ should like to see a court for the whole of the metropolis to take these matters into consideration; there is work, I think, for a magistrate sitting every day in such large parishes as Islington and St. Pancras. 5161. The matters you are speaking of are of a judicial kind, such as determining the amount of compensation?—There is a great deal of that, and no doubt a judicial mind is required. [It would be convenient to go before a county rather than a police magistrate. ] 5769. Have you a body of local justices sitting regularly?—No; they sit in the Sessions House at Clerkenwell, but they favour us by coming to the vestry hall to hear summons upon the rating, and also with reference to weights and measures. [They would provide a good and fair tribunal, and a readier one.] 76

Vestry clerk of Islington. See sects. 12-14 of 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 121.

77

510

Appendix B

5773. Is there any improvement that you would suggest in the constitution of the vestries, or of the other bodies which at present carry on the municipal administration of the metropolis?—/ do not know that I can suggest any. [Lay ton commented on the recent history of the governing bodies.] 5775. Are you satisfied generally with the kind of persons who are candidates for the vestry in your parish? Are they of as good a status as you would desire?—/ think we have cause to be pretty well satisfied; we have a very good mixture; it depends, however, upon the wards; in some of the wards we have almost a difficulty to get the £40 qualification; the number of our assessments in the parish is 23,000; there is, no doubt, a good deal of apathy on the part of the ratepayers, but I do not know why we should legislate for those who are apathetic. We generally send out something over 10,000 notices with regard to the day of election. 5776. Do you think there would be more interest excited in the elections on the part of the ratepayers if they were to vote by voting papers?—/ do not think they would be at all useful; I think that it would only extend the system of canvassing, and the result would be the same. 5111. Does much canvassing take place in your parish?—There is a great deal in particular wards; we have eight wards. I may mention that the ratepayers are limited to the ward in which they reside, but a vestryman may be taken from any part of the parish; some persons think that the intention of the Act of Parliament was that the vestrymen should be limited to the ward in which they reside.78 5778. Is that your own opinion?—/ think it would be more uniform; there is another singular thing in the Act of Parliament, a ratepayer who votes must have been actually rated 12 months,19 but not so with regard to the vestryman; he may have only just had his name put upon the rating books. 5779. Do you think it desirable that no one should be eligible as a vestryman for any ward unless he is an inhabitant of the ward ?—/ think he should be rated in that ward, or if there are two wards they might be brought together. 5780. Would not that rule limit still more than at present the range of choice, and diminish the chance of obtaining the most eligible persons?—It is subject to that construction being put upon it; I am speaking of a very large parish, each ward having a large population, and being almost a parish in itself. 5781. Some of your wards, I believe, are inhabited by a very poor population, are they not?—Comparatively, so that the £40 qualification for a vestryman is felt to be too high, limiting the selection. 5782. You would prefer to have a lower qualification for vestrymen?—In the lower rated wards, because at present you are liable to be driven to one class of 78

Sect. 6 sets forth the qualifications of a vestryman, including the £40 requirement, and the waiving of it, discussed in Qs. 5781 ff. 79 See sect. 16.

Metropolitan Local Government

511

persons, namely, tavern keepers and so on, of whom, however, I do not wish to speak with any disrespect. 5783. You say that there are wards in which there are very few persons rated at £40 except tavern keepers?—I do not put it so strongly as that, they would preponderate. 5784. You think it would be better to take persons rated in the ward, although at a lower qualification, than persons from other wards in the same parish?—Yes, I think the qualification which is mentioned, and the restriction which is given in one of the sections as to the amount of rating might as well be made applicable to the wards. There is one section which says that if the number of persons rated at £40 shall amount to one-sixth in a parish, the qualification shall be £40, but if they are below one-sixth then the qualification shall be £25. Now if that was confined to the different wards instead of the different parishes, I think it would be an advantage. The qualification would then be £25 in some of the wards, and £40 in others, so that the thing would be equalised. 5785. You think that even in that way there would be a sufficient mixture of classes in the vestry?—/ think so; I think I may speak very favourably of the vestry of Islington; complaints will arise and do arise, and indeed we should have nothing but stagnation if they did not; on the whole, I think the work is well done. [Lay ton dwelt on the failure of the Metropolitan Board of Works to live up to its promise to devote 250 acres to a park in Islington and Hornsey, to be known as Finsbury park.*0] 5791. Has your vestry made any remonstrance in any public manner?—Yes, we have been before the Board of Works by deputation; Mr. Torrens, Mr. Alderman Lusk, and the vicar attended, by the unanimous desire of the meeting in the parish. A deputation also attended from St. Luke's, Old-street. 5792. In the present state of the law, I suppose you have no appeal from the Board of Works except to Parliament?—No, the question I have mentioned is a legal one, and very peculiar; one of the clauses in the Finsbury Park Act is to this effect; that when the park is completed they shall dispose of 20 acres. That is like taking surplus land upon a railway for the purposes of deviation. Here they have decided that the 20 acres shall go for building purposes, but I think they are premature. That is one of the questions that ought to be decided. [Mill opened a new topic with this witness.] 5817. Has your attention been called to the proposals that have been made for establishing municipalities in different portions of the metropolis?—/ have not given much attention to the subject, but I think that Islington is quite large enough to be a district of itself. We are a municipality nearly, with the exception of having a mayor and aldermen. 80

As provided for in 20 & 21 Victoria, c. 150, Local and Private Acts (1857).

512

Appendix B

5818. What is the population?—At the last census it was 155,000; we take it now to be over 180,000. 5819. Do you know what proportion that bears to the population of the Parliamentary borough of Finsbury ?—/ do not know. The Islington list of voters is something more than half the list of votersfor the whole borough. I do not know the population of the borough. [The issue was raised of dividing the expenses of paving among the houses on a street. Payment was in the main proportioned to frontage, but there was no general agreement as to streets along flank walls, some magistrates holding that expenses attributable to such walls where there was no entrance should fall on the whole block. ] 5821. That it should not be paid for by the occupier of the house to which the wall is attached, but by the whole street?—[Yes, except that when there is an entrance, the owner should pay for the portion up to it. Because questions of this sort occupy too much of the magistrates' time, there should be uniform rules. Another complaint is that a magistrate has jurisdiction for only six months.] 5822. You mean that if the owner succeeds in resisting the demand for six months, he gets rid of it?—Yes; I should not have any hesitation in sueing a man in the county court, or one of the superior courts. [If occupiers were made liable in the first instance, it would be possible to proceed summarily against offenders.] 5824. Are there any other local rates which are levied directly from the owner and not from the occupier?—No. 5825. The only case in which the objection arises is that of paving new streets?—And making the roads. 5826. The pavement is kept up at the expense of the parish afterwards?—Yes; the Act of Parliament works beneficially in this way, stopping all question as to whether there has been a legal dedication, because it provides that after the parish has compelled the owners to do the work for all time, the roads are thrown upon the parish.S1 John Edwin Bradfield82 [The practice in Islington has been for the vestry, instead of hearing complaints about road maintenance, to turn them over to the highway committee, which the vestry appoints; in the opinion of the witness, that committee had already prejudged the question.] 81

Sects. 96-9 and 105 of the Metropolis Local Management Act concern the payment for street paving. 82 John Edwin Bradfield (1818-88), a parliamentary agent, appearing before the Commission to express the dissatisfaction of some Islington parishioners with their vestry.

Metropolitan Local Government

513

5841. In what way prejudged the question?—They have made the rates and applied them. 5842. You think it is to the vestry collectively that recourse should be had, and not to the highway committee?—/ think the vestry certainly ought to receive deputations and not hand them over to committees, but I go further in the remedy which I advocate; I say that there ought to be a power over the vestry in such a case as this, possessed either by the police magistrate or the Metropolitan Board of Works. Mr. Layton also referred to a letter; I should tell you that that letter was received by the chairman of a public meeting, 1 believe, on Saturday, and it gave him two days' notice to get up a meeting of inhabitants, on a road about three-quarters of a mile long, to go before the highway committee; this letter was sent by the vestry clerk after the matter had been before the highway committee two years and a half. 9 July John Charles Buckmaster83 [The Chair, in establishing the credentials of the witness, elicited the information that he had been very active in the government of Battersea.] 5847. Have you continued to take an interest in the management up to the present time?—Not much now; I have ceased during the last two or three years to take much active interest in the affairs of the parish. 5848. Had you any reason for ceasing to interest yourself in the matter?—I felt that I obtained so little support from the more intelligent and influential ratepayers of the parish, that it seemed to me hopeless to continue my efforts; I am now perfectly indifferent. 5849. You had reason to complain of the local management, and were opposed to the manner in which it was conducted?—Yes, I was very much opposed to the general local government of the parish. It seemed to me to be committed to persons very respectable in their way, but persons in whom I could feel no confidence with reference either to their judgment on many questions or to the raising and expenditure of such large sums of money as annually passed through their hands. 5850. Would you be good enough to state the points on which you had reason to differ from the vestry, or to disapprove of their conduct?—[Under the Local Management Act, the auditors are unpaid volunteers, inadequate and unwilling to perform their duties properly; consequently there is no proper oversight of the expenditure of rates. ] 5851. The auditors, I presume, would not be required to judge of the propriety of the expenditure, but only whether it had been really incurred?—[They simply see the receipts. The collection of rates was so badly done that the district board took it over, but now it is back in local hands, and again mismanaged. ] 83

John Charles Buckmaster (1823-1908), J.P. and Science Examiner for the South Kensington Museum.

514

Appendix B

5852. By whom are the collectors of the local rates appointed?—The churchwardens and the overseers. 5853. Then the vestry has no power over them?—None. 5854. Would they have any power of preventing malversations of this sort?—The vestry seems to have no power in our parish; the churchwardens and overseers make all the rates; the precepts are served on them, and the vestries seem to me to have no duties, or, if they have, they never perform them. Last year the vestry was convened only three times; once td elect the four members to the district board; once to appoint three members to the burial board; and once to fix the time for the going out of a portion of the existing vestry. 5855. I presume that the powers which the Metropolis Management Act has conferred on most vestries are, in your case, vested in the district board?—The district board is made up of persons sent from the vestries every year; we meet for the purpose, the first Wednesday in June, to appoint six men to the district board; one year we had a very severe contest in the parish; we were desirous, if we could, of getting a different class of men into office; after a very severe contest in a parish of 2,500 ratepayers, and collecting rates amounting to £70,000 or £80,000 a-year, there were only about 200 ratepayers that voted in the election, although for weeks before we had all the organization of a contested election, with the public-houses opened, and bills and cabs, and everything of that kind; but we failed entirely. 5856. That was with regard to the vestry?—[The strenuous attempt was made because the vestry is the source of all power and government; the failure to get the voters out resulted in the election of three beer-house-keepers seeking licenses, two retired publicans, a retired tripedresser, a hairdresser, a pianoforte tuner, an undertaker, and people of similar class. People who did not vote said they had been insulted enough.} 5857. To what do you ascribe this unwillingness of so many persons in the parish to take part in the elections for the vestry?—[Though thoroughly dissatisfied with the system, they see no way of improving it. While action by the district board is better, it is hard to induce, for example in his own case, concerning the preservation of footpaths and right of way.] 5858. If I understand you rightly, what you complain of chiefly, both in the vestry and in the district board, is indifference;—that they do not trouble themselves about public objects?—They do not; they do not perform the duties which they really ought to perform. With regard to nuisances, we have had piggeries and nuisances, of the most abominable character in the parish. At the present time I know of small houses in compound, where the cesspools in the backyards have been overrunning with filth, nearly six inches, for the last two or three weeks, loose bricks have been laid down for the tenants to walk on to keep them out of the filth as they go to the closets. You may ask why has it not been removed? I spoke about it to the inspector of nuisances, and it is to be brought first before a local

Metropolitan Local Government

515

committee, then the district board; but all this takes time, and the tenants might die with fever or cholera before any action is taken. 5859. A committee of the vestry?—[Yes, the most active member being the owner of the houses. Knowing nothing can be done, people submit to the abominable conditions.] 5860. What is the constitution of the district board?—The district board is formed by members elected from the vestry. 5861. From the vestries of the different parishes?—[In the case ofBattersea, the twenty-four vestrymen, many of whom do not attend, elect several members to the district board in June. The board, which has wide jurisdiction, acts with contempt for local sensibilities.] 5862. The district board, I suppose, is constituted under the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act?—Yes.84 5863. What is the extent of the district?—The district takes in Battersea, Tooting, Streatham, Clapham, Wandsworth, and Putney. 5864. So that the extent of the district is considerable?—Taking the boundary of the Thames at Battersea to Putney on one side, and from Tooting to Clapham on the South, on the other, you will get the entire area of the district comprehended by the district board. 5865. If I understand you rightly the complaints against the vestry and the district board are rather negative than positive. You complain of them for not doing things which they ought to do?—[Most of them try only to keep down the rates and to build compound houses, which have become a great nuisance because they are greatly under-rated. ] 5866. In what manner does putting the houses into compound cause them to be under-assessed?—The man who builds these houses and puts them into compound, says to the churchwardens and overseers, "You see these are weekly tenants, they may go out; the house may be empty, but whether it is empty or occupied, I will pay the rates regularly." The churchwardens and overseers think that that is a capital offer, that it will save the collector a great deal of trouble, and that they will be sure of their money. The consequence is that the houses are put into compound, and that is often the qualification for a man to be on the vestry. If it were not for this compound property, there would be eight or nine men now on the vestry who would be disqualified. 5867. In order to have the security of the owner for the rates, they are willing to compound with him for a much lower amount, provided it is paid throughout the whole year, whether the house is occupied or not?—Exactly. [The principle is that of the Small Tenements Act.] 5869. Is there any private Act in force in Battersea?—/ believe there was a 84

By sect. 32.

516

Appendix B

small Local Act of Parliament obtained some years ago.85 At that time the parish was almost entirely market garden ground, and the small houses were occupied by men who were engaged in cultivating this ground. I dare say there were very few poor men receiving more than 72s. or 13s. a-week, and it was sometimes felt difficult to get the rates from them. A solicitor, with the consent of the churchwardens and overseers, obtained an Act of Parliament for the purpose of putting this property into compound, and that Act of Parliament (which was obtained under circumstances very different from the present condition of the parish), has continued in operation to the present time. The existing owners of compound property take advantage of it, and the houses are put in at a third of their value. [This practice is allowed under the Local Act. ] 5871. As you have so unfavourable an opinion of the existing management of the parish, will you tell us what improvements you would recommend, in order to prevent the evils to which you have referred?—[The management now is vastly inferior to what it was a half-century earlier. If the present system is continued, there must be a great improvement in the levying and collection of rates.] [The present occupiers of compound houses could pay proper rates.] 5874. What length of time are the rates compounded for?—There is no time specified, but if one of these compound houses should become a beer shop, or any other kind of shop, then I believe the occupier is rated. I do not believe that the overseers and churchwardens have the power of putting them out of compound after they have once accepted them without giving the owner a reasonfor so doing, which is rarely done. [Discussion continued on the process of compounding, which was arranged wholly and foolishly by the churchwardens and overseers at the behest of the builders.] 5890. You mentioned that there were frequent arrears of rates, and that it was necessary to summon, every half year, five or six hundred ratepayers out of a total number of not more than 2,500; to what do you ascribe those arrears and the necessity of summoning the ratepayers ?—[While the collectors retain their office, the body who appoints them, the churchwardens and overseers, fluctuates in membership and so loses control. Also, the collectors turn first to the large and dependable ratepayers, the public companies and the respectable people living at Clapham Common, and leave the rest for another day.] 5891. Then the want of looking after the collectors of the rate is the great grievance in this case?—Yes; the churchwardens and overseers say, "We are not 85

8 & 9 Victoria, c. 21, Local and Private Acts (1845).

Metropolitan Local Government

517

going to incur any unpleasantness with the collectors; they have many relations and friends in the parish; we shall soon go out of office and have nothing more to do with the matter." They tell me, that with reference to the collector of the poor rates, they are absolutely powerless; that although they are responsible for the collection of these rates, they have no power to remove the collector except for dishonesty. 5892. Is the collector appointed for life?—He is appointed by the guardians for life if he likes to retain the situation. 5893. And have the guardians no power to remove him?—Yes; but the guardians are made up of persons from other parishes, as well as Battersea, and any attempt to remove the collector would probably not be successful; I have written to the Poor Law Board two or three times about the collection of the poor rates; unless you can show that a man has positively done something that is criminal he is allowed to go on. [InBuckmaster's opinion, smaller ratepayers do not pay, and the larger, while they may be indignant, often do not look into the matter.} 5896. In what manner are the collectors paid—by a percentage?—Yes; and that makes it rather a disadvantage, because the collectors do not care about taking the trouble to get these small sums. They may go out, and in one morning earn £10 or £12, or £20 by per centages, which it would take two or three weeks to earn by the collection of small rates. That is made use of in favour of this system of compounding. 5897. What would you propose by way of remedying these inconveniences?—/ would propose that there should be more direct responsibility to some permanent, and, perhaps, paid body. The churchwardens and overseers are a changing body, and it takes them some time to become thoroughly acquainted with the duties of their office, so that they are absolutely in the hands of the collectors, and many parochial officers never do understand or try to understand the many important duties which attach to their office. 5898. To what body would you entrust this control?—/ think with reference to the poor rate, the Poor Law Board ought to have more authority. I think their power should not be limited simply to seeing whether the money had been legally expended. I think they ought also to see whether it has been properly collected, and whether the assessment of property is just, and whether the rates made are excessive. Their functions seem now to be limited to the expenditure and not to the collection, which they say it is the duty of the churchwardens and overseers to superintend. 5899. In regard to the other local rates ?—With reference to the local rates, if the present system continues, I think the district board should be made responsible for the collection of the whole rate in the district, which should be uniform, subject to a paid auditor, and some more direct supervision and responsibility. For the

518

Appendix B

protection of the ratepayers, and some easy method of compelling the district board to do its duty. 5900. You mean, if the present local government by vestries and district boards continues?—Yes; I think it might be patched up in that way. 5901. Do you think it is desirable that that system should continue?—/ think it very undesirable; it is more expensive and inefficient. 5902. What would you suggest in lieu of it?—It is very difficult to suggest anything, but my impression is, that a larger organization is necessary. You do not want a small organization for Putney, with its local board, its vestry clerk, surveyor, inspector of nuisances, medical officer, and all the paraphernalia of a great government, and then the same thing repeated at Streatham, at Tooting, at Clapham, at Wandsworth, and atBattersea. All this machinery is expensive; you cannot have vestry clerks and surveyors in all these little parishes without paying them, and it seems to me that if all these parishes were united into one, the district would not be larger than some of the municipal corporations in the midland counties and other parts of England, and they would have the advantage of being under one jurisdiction. 5903. It would appear, however, that the district board is in some degree a kind of experiment, on the principle of management by larger districts; but you do not consider that experiment to be successful?—/ think it has been a failure, because they seem to have very limited powers, for they are very indifferent to the exercise of the powers they have. 5904. What would be your reasons for expecting a less degree of indifference, and a greater degree of vigilance and activity, in the exercise of their powers, from a body otherwise constituted?—[A more intelligent body of candidates would be called forth by the greater responsibility and authority.] [The witness gave details of inadequacy and bias by the district board.] 5928.1 understand you to say that you do not think the district board a successful experiment?—/ do not. 5929. And you would wish for an experiment on a still larger scale?—Yes, under very different arrangements. 5930. In what manner would you have it conducted; how would you constitute the local administration so as to be in your opinion better?—The district board is made up of the same class of men as the vestry. A man must first of all be on the vestry, that is, he must be assessed at £25, or £40 a year as it is now; from the vestry he is sent to the district board. Now as the vestry is, so will the district board be, and I say that the vestries of our parishes are not of such a character as to ensure that public confidence which I think such an administration ought to ensure. 5931. Should you think it preferable that the members of the district board should be elected directly by the ratepayers?—/ think it would be much better.

Metropolitan Local Government

519

5932. You think that a superior class of persons to those who constitute the vestry, would in that case be willing to serve on the district board?—/ think that is very probable: the election to the district board by the vestry is a very easy matter; half a dozen men meet together and go through the form of a ballot, but it is no ballot whatever. One man says to another, "We shall vote for Brown, Jones, and Robinson, and you vote for the same"; the list is then put into a hat, and Brown, Jones, and Robinson go to the district board. 5933. The members of the district board are elected by the vestry from their own number?—Yes. 5934. Do you think that the vestry usually selects its best men for that office ?—/ do not. There are certain men who are very anxious to be on the district board. 5935. You think that it is more often for the convenience of the persons elected, than for the benefit of the public that the choice is made?—Yes, and perhaps they are anxious for the little position, which, being on the district board, gives them, meeting as they frequently do, more respectable men from other parishes. 5936. Do you think that if the district board was elected by the ratepayers, you would get better men to serve on it?—/ think if you had a direct representation to the district board, without any assessment qualification, you would get a better class of men, because other men would become candidates. No person has now any chance outside the vestry. [The witness indicated he had never been a candidate for the district board, not being qualified even to be on the vestry.} 5938.1 think I understood you to say that, besides what you consider a defect in the mode of electing the district board, its powers are not sufficient?—/ think its action, with reference to the collection and expenditure of rates, is not under that control and supervision which it ought to be. 5939. You think that they have sufficient powers, but that those powers are not sufficiently controlled?—They do not exercise them. With reference, for instance, to the footpaths across Wandsworth Common, I wrote 16 letters to the Wandsworth district board, but I received no assistance whatever from them. I then appealed to the district board, with reference to the enclosure of about 10 acres of ground by a railway company, which were not required for the purposes of their Act, and I asked in a friendly way if they could tell me by what authority all this was done, but they refused to give me any assistance or advice. 5940. Was that within the legal power of the vestry?—It was quite within the power of the district board, and it was their duty to have inquired into the matter. 5941. Do you consider that the extent of the district over which the district board exercises its authority is sufficient, or would you have a still larger district?—/ would have a larger district, without increasing the number of men. I am not quite sure whether in every case voluntary service is good service, it is never felt as a responsible service. A man neglects his duty, but what of it ? You cannot expect him

520

Appendix B

to give up his time without some equivalent. Those who do the public work should be paid for it. 5942. You would wish to have paid officers to perform the duties now performed by these bodies?—/ think there should be more paid officers; you would then have greater and more responsibility and supervision. 5943. Do you think that there should be paid officers only, or that there should be paid officers to constitute what may be called a local executive, and a more popularly constituted body to vote the rates?—/ would keep up the present system of popular election, and extend it if possible, but I think there should be some other more responsible body, and perhaps it would be a matter of consideration, and more desirable, that some portion of that body should be permanent and paid, but responsible to some other and higher authority. 5944. You think it would be a good plan to have paid officers for every branch of administration, who should be responsible to an unpaid body elected by the ratepayers ?—Something of that kind. 5945. By whom would you have these paid officers appointed?—The appointment of these paid officers would, perhaps, be a difficulty. I have not thought the matter out. 5946. Do you think it would be a good plan that there should be a permanent chairman of the elected body, and that this permanent chairman, who might be paid or not as might be thought advisable, should be the responsible head of the local administration, should be responsible for the appointment of proper persons to all the paid offices ?—/ would not vest the appointment of the paid officers entirely in the hands of such a person; I think there should be some board with which he was acting that should have some power in the matter, or the appointments might become jobs. 5947. By supposition he is the chairman of the elected body, and, being chairman of the elected body, holding the same relation to it as the Lord Mayor does to the Common Council, might be either the responsible person to appoint the executive officers himself, or propose them to the elected body?—Yes. 5948. And in that case there would be, perhaps, a responsibility which you think is at present deficient?—/ think, perhaps, that would meet the difficulty. At present, we have several paid officers; we have a clerk to the board, a surveyor, and two or three clerks; that is the organization for the district board simply. In our parish we have a paid vestry clerk, who does as little as possible, and another clerk, and we have three paid officers. It seems to me, that if all these offices were fused into one, it would be more economical for the ratepayers than having the present number of paid servants. 5949. You think there is no use for the vestry, and that it would be sufficient to have the larger district with a proper organization, an elected council, and the requisite number of paid officers under them without having any on a smaller scale?—Yes, and when I tell you that last year the elected vestry only met three times, you can form an estimate of how unimportant the vestry has become.

Metropolitan Local Government

521

5950. The vestry existing at the present time is merely an electoral body to appoint these other persons?—Yes. [They elect the churchwardens and prepare a list of overseers for the magistrates who automatically take the first names. In reply to the Chair's information that according to the Act only houses up to £15 value could be rated to the owner, Buckmaster insisted that houses of greater value, letting for up to 10s. per week, were being compounded for.] 5954. May not that fact be owing to the very considerable rise that has taken place in the value of property in many parishes, so that houses originally not worth more than £15 a-year may now be worth £20?—That will apply, no doubt, to a very large amount of property in the parish, but not to all of it. I believe there is a kind of understanding between the churchwardens and overseers, and the owners of these compound houses. Supposing the churchwardens and overseers to be themselves owners of compound houses, to any extent (and we have had abundant instances of that), of course they would do the thing very lightly for themselves. 16 July John Fuller*6 [Questions dwelt on various matters pertaining to the vestry of Islington, which Fuller asserted was open to charges of gross mismanagement.] 6125. Is there a weights and measures committee in your vestry?—Yes; it is not what we call one of our permanent committees; it is selected from members of other committees. 6126. Selected when there is any work to do relating to weights and measures?—They are always elected on Easter Tuesday. 6127. Have you any remarks to make about that committee?—No, I know nothing against them. I believe they are a very useful committee; I think it is very essential that parties should be well looked after in that respect. 6128. Have you anything to say about the lighting committee?—[There has been some negligence.] 6129. Did you ever hear the weights and measures committee complained of for not dealing sufficiently severely with tradesmen when possessing false weights and measures?—It was proposed before the vestry that we should publish the names of persons whose weights and scales had been found incorrect. The weights and measures committee rather objected to it; they said they did not like to take the responsibility of publishing the names; but they did the next best thing, that is, they consented that the reporters for the press should be present at meetings when the names were announced, so that they might be published in the local papers. 6130. Has there not been some complaint against those committees for eating and drinking at the expense of the ratepayers?—Yes; it appears that we allowed 86

Member of the vestry in Islington.

522

Appendix B

the committee, I think, about £60 a-yearfor their expenses, and they made it about £60 or £70 more. They used, I believe, to go a little way out of town and have splendid dinners with champagne, burgundy, and all the choice wines, and three or four courses, and rose water after dinner. [The event occurred three or four years previously. ] 6132. But they did not expend more of the ratepayers' money than you allowed; the rest was at their own expense?—They kept within the money allowed by the vestry. James Wilson81 [Mill began after the Chair's identifying questions.] 6182. I believe you have taken great interest in the question of municipal institutions ?—Yes. 6183. You have been an officer in municipal institutions in America many years?—Yes. 6184. Has your attention been drawn to the distinction between the practical working of municipal government in America and England?—Yes. 6185. In what part of America have you served municipal offices?—In the first place, I was in New York, and latterly in New Orleans, also in Canada. 6186. What offices did you fill in those places?—In one municipality, I had the situation of auditor, and in another that of assessor. 6187. And things came to your knowledge respecting municipal administration there, and the manner in which it was carried out, which you think may throw light on municipal administration here?—Yes. 6188. Be so good as to state them?—In the first place, with regard to assessment, it occurs to me that there is a very great difference between the system of assessing property in this country and in America. In America, all property, real and personal, is assessed for municipal purposes, including income. 6189. Do I understand that the assessment is entirely on property and not on rental, as it is here?—On property, real and personal. 6190. Here it is not an assessment on property at all, but the assessment in the United States is on property, if I understand you?—It varies in different States; in some States, the assessment is made on the whole value of the property; in some other States, it is made upon the annual value of the property, but in all the States, it not only includes real property, but personal property, merchandise, money used in business, professional income, and every other species of personal property. 6191. You mean that the per centage is taken upon the estimated value of the whole property of each person ?—If you will permit me, I will give you an instance 87

Resident of Bloomsbury.

Metropolitan Local Government

523

in point, which will show what I mean. As an assessor, I call upon an individual, and ask him the amount of rent he pays, supposing the assessment to be upon the rental (I take that for the purpose of making a fair comparison between your system and theirs). If he states an amount lower than the amount I think is reasonable, I add to that amount. If he has taken his house at a period when property was too high, I deduct from that amount, giving what I consider a fair estimate of the present value of the property. 6192. The assessor does that?—Yes. 6193. Is there any appeal from the assessor?—/ will mention that. After ascertaining the value of his real property, I ask what business he is engaged in, and, if he is a professional men, the amount of his income. That is put down at its annual value. If he earns £1,000 a-year, the annual value would be £60 per annum. If he is engaged in mercantile transactions, I take the average stock in trade, and the annual value of that is supposed to be a sum represented by five or six per cent., according to the different States. That is included in the annual value, and in the amount assessed against him; so that the basis of taxation is much larger than it is here; it includes all that a man is possessed of. [That is, for municipal purposes. ] 6195. If you do not think that the declaration of a person himself is correct, you add to it or diminish it, according to your judgment?—Yes. 6196. Is there any appeal from the assessor?—There is an appeal from the assessor to the members of the municipality. As a general rule they appoint a committee for the purpose of hearing those appeals, and if the appeal is decided against the party, and he is not satisfied with it, he can appeal again from that body to the county judge, whose decision is final. 6197. So that ultimately, if he chooses, the matter may be carried before a strictly judicial tribunal?—Precisely. I may also mention that if the assessor desires to save trouble, or considers it a better way, he has the option of presenting a declaration to the individual that he may make, either by affirmation or oath, as the case may be, a statement as to the amount of his real and personal property. 6198. His function seems to be similar to that of the Income Tax Commissioners here?88—Somewhat so. 6199. Is there anything else which, in your capacity as assessor, struck you as being important?—Local improvements are very generally done by local assessment; for example, in the case of individuals in a particular street or block of houses desirous of having some change made; a new drain, or a common sewer, or a new pavement, or a new causeway in the street; a number of them constituting in the whole a majority as to value and numbers, present a memorial to the 88 Local commissioners appointed by the Land Tax Commissioners from their own body, to appoint and supervise assessors and collectors of the income tax.

524

Appendix B

corporation or municipality setting forth that they desire this improvement; the property benefited by such improvement is then visited by the assessor, who assesses the property according to his judgment at the amount which each individual ought to pay towards the improvement. 6200. Who is it that decides whether this improvement shall be made?—The municipality. 6201. Then the subject is brought before the municipality first, and if they decide in favour of the improvement being made the assessor proceeds to assess the means of payment of all persons in the district?—Yes; except that in the event of the locality being willing to bear the whole of the expense they invariably get the improvement, but where they ask the assistance of the municipality it is a question whether they get it or not. 6202. When you speak of the locality you do not mean any definite division of the district, but you mean any portion of the public comprised within any boundary whatever who consider that they have any interest in common?—Yes. 6203. Have you found this system work well?—/ think so. 6204. You think it gives general satisfaction?—Yes. 6205. Is there any other point to which you desire to draw the attention of the Committee in connection with the duties of assessor?—At present I do not think of any other. 6206. You have also had experience in the capacity of auditor?—Yes. 6207. Have you anything to remark upon, which came to your knowledge in that capacity?—With respect to the auditing of accounts it is an invariable rule, in fact it is the law, that all accounts must be published in the local papers, and paid for. 6208. At the expense of the rate?—At the expense of the ratepayers. 6209. How are the auditors appointed?—That varies in different municipalities; but I think, as a general rule, one is appointed by the head of the municipality and another by the members on a division. 6210. Then there is an officer who is at the head of the municipality?— Invariably. 6211. What are the peculiar functions of that office?—[The title varies in different jurisdictions, for example in counties there is a chairman of supervisors, in townships a chairman, in towns a mayor. ] 6212. What power does the chief (whatever may be his name) exercise independently of the remainder of the body?—[In New York, he exercises very great powers, being connected with the management of the county. When there are small municipalities, they federate so that the mayor, as head of the supervisors, becomes a member of the superior body in control of the erection of schools, poor houses, and infirmaries.] 6213. School houses, poor houses, and infirmaries, belong to a larger district than a municipality?—They do.

Metropolitan Local Government

525

6214. Consequently they require a special board to administer them; that is, there is a board representing a larger district than the municipal districts which has authority over the school houses, poor houses, and infirmaries?—That is so. 6215. And how is this board appointed?—The townships each elect supervisors; persons who have authority in the municipalities, corresponding to your parishes. 6216. "Supervisors" is the name of the members of the municipal board of the townships ?—Yes. 6217. And the chairmen of the different township municipalities become members of the County Board of Supervision?—Yes. 6218. The county board, then, is composed of the chairmen of the local boards?—Yes. 6219. How are these chairmen appointed; are they elected by the ratepayers to the special office of chairman, or are they elected in common with other members of the board, and then, having been elected supervisors by the ratepayers, are they appointed as chairmen by the Board itself?—That is the way: they are elected amongst other supervisors, and afterwards appointed by the respective municipalities as chairmen. 6220. And these chairmen come together and form a board for the county?— They do. 6221. And is there any board for a larger district than a county?—There is no larger district recognised, except the State, which is the next step. I will give you the respective steps: the village, having a board of five trustees, the town, having a board according to the number of inhabitants, of from seven to 20 or 30 persons, and in the case of New York 41, the county, having a board consisting according to the number of municipalities in the county, of from 30 to 60 or 80 members. Then the State, which is at the head of the whole, comprising, of course, all the counties; but that is an entirely separate affair, having no connection with the municipal arrangements. 6222. It is one of the most important subjects in municipal administration, what powers should be exercised by the elected board, and what are the responsibility of the chairman individually; how is that matter arranged in those boards in America with which you are connected?—It is not invariable. They have changed the plan several times in New York on this account; there is a very large foreign population there; the city being now composed of more than half foreign born people. The system was devised for the Americans themselves, who are much better educated than we are (I speak as one of the humbler classes myself). Having been trained and educated in this system of municipal government, they found no difficulty in managing it; but they have since changed it, so as to give the mayor a veto upon certain measures; if the council pass a measure by a large majority the mayor can put his veto upon it and stop it altogether.

526

Appendix B

[The mayor is elected for two years. ] 6224. Is he appointed by the Council?—In New York he is appointed by the people. 6225. Is that frequently the case?—It varies in different States. As a general rule, in the States, I think, the head of the municipality is appointed by the people, but in the country it is the other way; the chairman is elected by the municipalities. However, there is no rule adhered to; it varies in different States. 6226. Have you formed any opinion as to which of these plans works best?—/ have not considered that matter sufficiently. [Mayor and board are elected by the same suffrages. ] 6228. If you had to give an account of the duties of the mayor, in a large town in the United States, of what would you say they consisted?—/ should say that he was the general executive officer of the corporation, that he did, or saw to the doing of everything done in the place. 6229. He is responsible to the corporation for the execution of those public duties of which they are the controllers?—He is. 6230. Is he in the habit of consulting them generally, or does he proceed on some general rule which they are only bound to see observed?—In the large State of New York, particularly, the municipality divides itself into committees, each taking charge of a particular department: the mayor is, generally, a member of the most important of those committees, and whatever business they transact must, in all cases, come under his supervision. 6231. Is the power of these committees in any case paramount to his, or are they merely intended to keep the body which appointed them, informed as to his proceedings in order that they may exercise the duty of controlling? In congress itself, there are committees appointed to superintend every part of the business of Government, and consequently every Act of the Government; but in spite of that, these committees have not a controlling power over the president; is that the case in municipal government, or does it stand?—That is generally the case; but I have remarked already that in New York the mayor has a veto. 6232. In New York nothing can be done without the mayor's consent?— Nothing of importance. 6233. But that is not the case in most other places ?—Not in general in American municipalities. 6234. Generally, what is the extent of the power of the mayor; what could he do of his own authority?—His power is limited by the general Act of Incorporation; in the case of New York by the special act, which they have for that purpose; although the whole of the country is incorporated under general acts, there are certain towns that have applied for and have obtained special acts, and New York is one of them. 6235. According to the general system of the country where there are no special

Metropolitan Local Government

527

acts, is the mayor merely the minister of the corporation, or has he powers of his own?—Generally he is a mere minister of the corporation. 6236. In fact he executes their instructions?—He does. 6237. So that in the more general case it is the corporation itself, as in this country, which administers, and the mayor is only the chairman of their body?—Yes. 6238. But it is not so in some of the towns under special acts?—No. 6239. Do you think there is any growing tendency in the United States to confide this greater degree of power to the executive officer, the mayor, or whatever he may be called?—If we might judge from the case of New York, there is, but that is an exceptional case. 6240. Owing to the great concourse of foreigners, but you think the general system is that of administration by boards rather than by individual officers?— Yes, the municipal business of New York and of some other large cities is so extensive that it is impossible for the unpaid members of the municipality to do it. In any case the actual duties are delegated to separate boards; for instance, in New York the superintendence of immigration is delegated to a special board. 6241. Is that a paid board?—A paid board. The duties are all done by paid officers. 6242. Does the board consist of members of the corporation?—So far from that being the case, the members of that board are appointed by the Governor and Senate of the State of New York. The police of New York, a most important matter, is also controlled by a board of the same description appointed by the Governor and the Senate of the State, altogether independent of the corporation. 6243. To that extent a portion of the work in other places belonging to the municipal government is taken out of that category and is assumed by the general Government of the State?—Yes. 6244. Is there anything else that you wish to state with regard to the differences between the municipal government of the United States and this country?—/ have looked over the Bill proposing to establish municipalities in the metropolis, and I have observed that there is a difference in this respect, that the electors are proposed to be the burgesses of the respective municipalities. Now, 1 can understand what a burgess means in the City of London, where I believe there are special privileges and large sums of money left in the way of endowments, and so on. [In the outlying districts of London, the ratepayers would be the proper parties.] 6246. The intention of the Bill is that it should be the ratepayers.89 They would only be constituted burgesses by the district being constituted a corporation. The 89

See clause 11 of the proposed Bill.

528

Appendix B

name burgess is like the name of alderman and common councilman adopted in the Bill, as I understand, merely because they are terms used in existing cases?— There is another suggestion which I may be allowed to make, which is taken from American practice. I find that there are references in the margin of the Bill to a variety of other Acts under which the municipalities are to be constituted or to act. In the case of America, all the powers under which a corporation acts are comprised in one Act, so that each one of the municipalities, by means of a sixpenny pamphlet, can see precisely the extent of their powers. 6241. Does any other suggestion occur to you?—All the elections for municipalities in America take place in every State on a particular day mentioned in the Statute; generally about the 8th of December; and before that day a statement of accounts must be published in the newspapers, so that the ratepayers may have an opportunity of checking the expenditure. 6248. By whom are the auditors appointed?—One is appointed by the head of the municipality and another by the council; that is the general rule. 6249. Even when the head of the municipality is merely as it were the chairman of the municipality, without having independent powers, it is still usual that he should appoint one auditor, and the body should appoint the other?—It is. 6250. Is the audit usually an effectual one? Does it give satisfaction to the ratepayers?—/ think so. 6251. Of course the duty of an auditor does not relate to the reasons for the expense, but only to its having been actually incurred; but the ratepayers who are judges of the reasons of the expense have opportunities, if I understand you rightly, by a regular publication of the accounts before the annual period of the elections, of judging how far their representatives have done their duty during the year?—Precisely so. 6252. That takes place annually.?—Yes. In New York there is a special arrangement. An auditor is appointed by the government of the City, and he has a veto on expenditure which he does not find that the municipality have legal authority to make. [The questioning turned to the division of State and municipal powers, and the witness said the New York waterworks were provided for by a special State Act, giving borrowing powers to the city.] 6342. The works were made at the expense of the corporation?—At the expense of the city. [Wilson outlined the kinds of expenditure to explain the apparently high municipal taxes, mentioning police, free schools, workhouses, infirmaries, reformatories, lighting, watering, and paving.} 6399. And are the gaols included?—Yes. 6400. Is water laid on to every house?—To every house in New York; but there are towns without water.

Metropolitan Local Government

529

[Wilson gave his opinion that in London the great thoroughfares and public streets were in better repair than in New York; the reverse was true of the back streets.] 6426.1 believe that New York is said to be one of the worst places in the United States in that respect?—Yes. 23 July Edwin Chadwick [Exceptionally, Mill, rather than the Chair, began the questioning.] 6494. Will you state the public offices you have filled?—As a Commissioner of Inquiry into the Administration of the Poor Law, I have had to consider the principles and to prepare measures which resulted in the consolidation of the administration of 16,000parishes into some 650 unions.90 As a Commissioner of Inquiry into the state of the constabulary force in the country, I had to prepare principles of organisation and action which have led to the substitution of a parochial constabulary force by county police forces .91 As a consequence of my report in 1842 on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain, I had a leading share in the preparation of measures by which the administrative arrangement for the water supply and drainage of towns have been consolidated in between one or two hundred cases under local boards of health.92 I refer to these cases of administrative consolidation, because in proportion as those principles have been adopted by the substitution of paid for unpaid service, in wider administrative areas economy has in every instance resulted more or less coincident with efficiency. 6495. You have had your attention drawn very much to the principles applicable to local administration as well as to general administration?—Particularly. 6496. And you have paid very particular attention to the local administration of the metropolis amongst others?—Yes. Under the Poor Law Commission, I had to examine the parochial administration of the metropolis. Under the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission, I had to examine, with my colleagues, the administration of works under sewers commissions and paving boards; and as part of the sanitary inquiry, I examined especially the interment of the dead in the parochial graveyards of the metropolis, upon which I reported. Under the consolidated Sewers Commission, I had to prepare, with colleagues, various measures for the amended drainage of the metropolis.93 Under the Public Health Act, and as a ^Chadwick refers to the Report of 1834 and to the resulting Act, 4 & 5 William IV, c. 76 (1834). 91 See "First Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Best Means of Establishing an Efficient Constabulary Force in the Counties of England and Wales," PP, 1839, XIX, 1-233, and 2 & 3 Victoria, c. 47. 92 The Act resulting from Chadwick's 1842 report was 11 & 12 Victoria, c. 63 (1848). 93 See "First and Second Reports of the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission," PP, 1847-48, XXXII, 1-319.

530

Appendix B

member of the General Board of Health, we had to direct examinations and temporary organisations of the means of administering relief to the sick on the occurrence of extraordinary epidemic visitations. 6497. It is well known that the experience which you acquired in all these different capacities you have made use of in turning your mind to the subject of the general principles of administration in its various branches. Although several of the subjects with which you are especially conversant are not within the scope of this inquiry, the Committee have no doubt that the general principles which you have been led by your experience to arrive at will be of great use in the inquiry?—It appears to me that the best mode of considering administrative organisation is to get a distinct view of what is required by the public to be done, and then a clearer opinion may be formed of the sort of agency required to do it. Now I venture to aver, in respect of the metropolis, that fully one-third of the existing death-rate may, and ought to be reduced; that is to say, taking the deaths at 60,000per annum, 20,000 may be annually saved, and20 times that number of cases of sickness may be prevented by measures, the results of which are so clearly ascertained, that if adequate premiums were given, data might be offered to commercial people as a private enterprise under which, with proper powers, they might safely undertake to contract for the attainment of these results. [In response to the Chair, Chadwick indicated that he referred to the whole metropolis when asserting that a one-third reduction in the death-rate was possible, and added that for every preventable death there were twenty cases of preventable sickness.} 6499. What is the nature of the evidence on which you found this opinion?— [The judgment is based on what has been done in typical old buildings where adequate sanitary improvements have been made. Even better estimates could be made from properly constructed new buildings. ] 6500. What do you consider to be the obstacle that the present state of things throws in the way of the adoption of improvements from which you expect these great results?— [The answer might be deduced from a description of what should be done and at what expense, which Chadwick offered, by a new general and complete system of works replacing those of the private companies.] [Chadwick maintained his position, citing more evidence of what had been and could be done at low cost. ] 6506. The estimate which you have made with regard to the amount at which these different things could be done is founded on actual experience?—[The experience is drawn from various places. It may be anticipated that average costs in London would be even lower. ] 6507. You have mentioned the great improvements which in your opinion remain to be effected in the local management of the metropolis. What in your

Metropolitan Local Government

531

opinion are the administrative means by which those great improvements, or any practical improvements, might be effected?—[The great means is unified management of a larger undivided area, as is evident, for example, concerning drainage.] 6508. You think therefore that the present management by which only what may be called arterial drainage is in the hands of the sanitary authority (the Metropolitan Board of Works), and the minor drains are in the hands of parochial authorities or local boards of works, and the house drainage sometimes not under any, is a vicious system?—Yes; my own conclusions in respect to unity of management and the administrative consolidation of works stated in 1842 were subsequently confirmed by the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Health of Towns. In that commission were Mr. Robert Stephenson, Mr. Cubitt, and other engineers; Sir Henry De la Beche, and many men of scientific authority, and they concurred in this; that the drainage of the house, of the street, and the site, also the supply of water to towns, and the formation, the drainage, the cleansing, and the maintenance of the roads of a district, comprising the natural drainage area, must be under one and the same authority, and that authority ought to be a public one; and all the consolidation in other places has gone to that to bring these subject-matters under one and the same authority, and that a public one. 6509. The whole drainage, therefore, of the metropolis, including the house drainage, you think, ought to be entrusted to a single authority?—[The many reasons for consolidation include the geology of the region, economy, engineering concerns, and efficiency and the resulting improvement in services.] 6510. Would you infer from this that the same body ought to have the charge of the drainage of the metropolis and the roads of the metropolis?—Yes, the footpaths and the carriage ways; suburban as well as urban. In the particular instance cited of the metropolitan road trust which worked so well, comparatively, to the smaller parochial administrations, we believed that the consolidation was imperfect, and that the consolidation with the drainage and surface cleansing arrangements, which drainage arrangements were entrusted to a separate authority, would be attended with further benefit. 6511. Sir Benjamin Hall's Act was subsequent to that report, I think?—Yes. 6512. Are you acquainted with the working of that Act?—[Chadwick said he was not, but the benefits of consolidation could be seen in the parallel improvements found when the district sewers commissions were united. ] 6513. I understand that you rely for the improvement of local administration principally upon the consolidation of the fragmentary portions in which the work is now executed and superintended, and placing them all under a single management; and you rely also for enabling these single management boards to get through such a mass of business upon the discharge of as much of it as possible by paid officers who devote their whole time to the subject?—[To cease to rely on part-time experts would save lives as well as money.]

532

Appendix B

6514. Then, having regard to the existing state of things, and the means by which it may be improved, what administrative changes would you recommend in the present local administration of the metropolis?—[The enormous scale of works required, with the consequent dangers of very expensive mistakes—some already made—make it imperative that in devising and carrying on great works, there should be a special commission responsible to parliament rather than to ignorant vestry representatives.} [ The questioning turned to Chadwick' s belief that there should and could be two drainage systems, one for sewage, to be directed onto lands for absorption, and one for rain and subsoil water to empty into the Thames. ] 6531. Your idea is, if I understand you, that there are certain things necessary in order to contrive a new system, and get it going, which you think can best be done by a temporary body created for that express purpose, and which you think should be central rather than local?—Yes. 6532. But after the new system is once established, then it can be delivered over to local bodies ?—[In Chadwick's view, perhaps to a new body, but not to several, because disunity in superintendence would be expensive at best and also disruptive if less than best.] 6533. But if a general system for the whole of the district that you think ought to be included had been selected and actually carried into execution, and brought into good working order, to whom would you afterwards entrust the administration of it?—[A mixed administrative body, including some responsible to parliament, some paid and some selected representatives. Elections, however, are not the best means of getting qualified persons.] 6534. You think that anybody locally elected would not be adequate even to superintend the different branches of local administration when they were well started?—/ think you might possibly and by selection introduce the representative element to some extent; but you should mainly rely on permanent officers, as in the case of the Metropolitan District Roads Commission, looking to the elected or selected persons merely for supervisory services, notfor any initiative or executive directions, and I should connect the whole, in the case of the metropolis, under immediate reponsibility to Parliament. 6535. That would be quite consistent with having local boards elected, because I understand you to think that the main business, apart from the superintendence, ought to be carried on by permanent officers who would be selected for their special qualifications, and in that case the business of any administrative boards could only be the voting of rates, and seeing that proper persons were appointed to the offices, and that the funds were applied to proper purposes?—Apart from any political prejudices, the best specimen of administration is to be found in the operation of unity of management in Paris. Looking at the strides they are making there, we may well have reason to be ashamed of ourselves in comparison. The

Metropolitan Local Government

533

conseil of the municipality is appointed by the Government, and it is composed of men of eminence in science; Dumas, the chemist, members of the Institute, retired executive officers or administrators, who are competent to judge of the measures submitted to them for their approval by the permanent officers, and to audit and vouchfor them. During the revolution of 1848 they made the body elective, and the competence and character of the persons elected was so inferior in all respects, that by universal public consent the old mode of responsible selection was resorted to. 6536. But I believe under the government of Louis Philippe the municipal commission of Paris was elected by popular suffrage, although, I believe, the qualification was rather high, being the same as the suffrage for the Chamber of Deputies, which was high and restrictive.94 The commission, I think, was appointed in that way, and consisted then, as it does now, of some of the most eminent men in Paris willing to discharge those duties?—/ am stating from recent communications in saying that when they attempted to get a council by popular election, the character of the body fell off so considerably that they reverted to the system of nomination. 6537. Do you not think it is likely that in the time of the Revolution, with the period intervening between the subversion of Louis Philippe's government and the commencement of the present government, the municipal commission might have been elected more for political reasons than for any special qualifications, and yet that this might not be the case in a permanent state of things, even under popular election?—Apart from any political questions, this is clear, that demands for labour in these offices are greatly increasing, while the demands on the time of men for their own professional pursuits, or their own personal special studies are also increasing, and that you have fewer and fewer of a competent and a valuable leisure class from whom you can get sacrifices of time for public work. They have made their sacrifices, and done all they can in the way of daily labour in connection with their professions. After that they want the relief of amusement, and are not disposed, at least in the metropolitan districts, as far as I have seen, to labourfor the public; and we find it to be exceedingly difficult to get committees of the right quality for the requisite service. [In response to the Chair, Chadwick indicated that even appointed eminent men found it difficult to give sufficient time to serve the metropolis.] 6539. Probably you would recommend that administrative bodies of this character should, at any rate, have a permanent chairman, who would be selected for his qualifications, and should be considered as a permanent officer?—Yes, but ^Louis Philippe (1773-1850), King of France 1830-48; "Loi . . . sur 1'organisation municipale de la ville de Paris" (20 Apr., 1834), Bulletin des lots du royaume de France, 9th ser., Pt. 1 (Lois), VI, 113-17.

534

Appendix B

any departure from the principles of unity of administration and the combination of works for the whole metropolis, I am convinced, will involve extra expense and inefficiency. 6540. You are aware that in Paris, although there is but one superintending municipal commission for the whole, the city is divided into a great number of executive districts, each of which has a mayor?—Those are the remains of old and effete functions and organisations. The mayors, I believe, merely register and do some notarial acts, in analogy with the mayors all over the country, but my recent information is that there really is but one administrative body at present in Paris, and that all the amendments going on are worked by engineers or paid officers, with occasional supervision by the conseil; there is nothing there like our inferior and wasteful parochial management. The public intelligence there does not tolerate anything of the sort. 6541. Then is your opinion not favourable to any subdivision of the metropolis for any administrative purposes whatever?—[It is not to be recommended in any of the areas of which he has a special experience, such as public works and poor relief. Also, the administration of police should not be elective, and should be united. ] [Chadwick added police supervision of water for fire control to his list of properly centralized functions.] 6544. Altogether the result of your experience and reflection on the subject, in all the departments with which you are specially acquainted, is that the whole of the metropolis should be under one management?—Yes, and from its being the seat of the Government, the Government itself should be required to share the responsibility of that management. I may mention as an instance of the recognition of legislative and administrative principle that it is distinctly provided in the American constitution that the seat of the Government, not only Washington itself, but Columbia, shall be under a distinct and special Government, responsible to the Senate, to Congress, or to the President. [Chadwick would not commit himself as to the desirability of there being a government department responsible for metropolitan management.} 6546. You think that the general executive of the country ought to have a share in appointing members of the controlling body, whatever it may be?—Certainly; they ought to be distinctly responsible for it. In Parliament, Members now indicate their notions of a Parliamentary responsibility as respects the metropolis, by asking questions about particular streets, or concerning themselves with the action of minor works there; and, certainly, works that concern about a seventh of the population of the country may be well attended to by them; I think there has been a gross dereliction of duty on the part of some representative people in not attending to this whole matter.

Metropolitan Local Government

535

6547. Under such a consolidated body you would, I suppose, entrust the different branches of the metropolitan government to permanent paid officers, under the general superintendence of the body which was partially elective and partially appointed by the crown?—Yes; but better with honorary supervisory service selected by the union. 6548. In that way you would expect to obtain officers, with first-rate qualifications, in each of the departments on whom would rest the principal part of the administration, the duty of the board being chiefly to look after them?—/ think besides that you would, with responsible paid service, also get a higher order of voluntary unpaid service. 6549. You think you would obtain in the board itself a superior class of persons to those obtained now for any local purposes?—Yes; but I am clear upon this, that you cannot have in any of those works I have specified, any separation without disastrous waste. [Other members of the committee canvassed Chadwick's opinions on diverse administrative questions.} 6610. Have you anything further to state in elucidation of your views?—[The virtues of the Liverpool administration had been much exaggerated; it had failed, through the operation of special building interests, to attend properly to matters of public health, and so compared very unfavourably with French municipalities such as those of Bordeaux and Lyons.] [Again the questioning took in many aspects of the problems in metropolitan government, before Mill asked the final question.] 6637.1 believe you have given a statement of your views with reference to the improvement of Poor Law administration as applicable to the metropolis to the President of the Poor Law Board?—/ have, especially as to the medical relief of the sick poor.95 John Savage96 [Mill opened the questioning.] 6638. You are a Member of the Islington Vestry?—/ am. 6639. And a representative in the Metropolitan Board of Works?—/ am. 6640. How long have you filled those offices?—Since the passing of the Metropolis Local Management Act in 1855. 6641. Have you been particular in your attention to local business during all that time?—Yes; I have been constant in my attention, or nearly so. 95 A note indicates that "The Witness delivered in the documents.—Vide Appendix"; however, no such statement on the Poor Law appears there. 96 Died 1875.

536

Appendix B

6642. Are there any remarks you wish to submit to the Committee on the working of the present system, or any improvements that it may admit of?—Yes; I think there is one great improvement that might be made. Assuming that these vestries and district boards are continued, I think it would be a very great advantage in the larger ones. I will not say in those composed of so small a number as 36 or 48 members, or possibly of 60, but in all those beyond that number, if they had a permanent chairman. My experience, from that which I have seen, from a constant attendance at my own vestry, and occasional attendances at others, has confirmed me in my opinion that that would be a most desirable improvement. 6643. Be so good as to state the advantages that you would expect from it?—[The present disadvantages may illustrate the expected benefits; at present there is a constant changing of chairmen in the Islington vestry, with consequent irregularities and unfortunate situations, including disrupted meetings. Part of the problem is that churchwardens with one-year terms are expected to be chairmen.} 6644. The duties of chairman of the vestry at present comprise nothing beyond presiding at the meetings?—[Usually nothing else is required, though when Savage himself was chairman he also chaired the Highways Committee, one of their busiest. } 6645. Does any duty devolve on the chairman as to the preparation of business for the vestry?—It has not of necessity been the case; but whilst I was chairman I was always in communication with the vestry clerk, and had very much to do with the business, consulting him prior to its being put in the paper. Still, no official duty of that kind devolves on the chairman. 6646. I understood you to say that you thought there might be with great advantage a permanent chairman, who might be made useful for administrative purposes, independently of presiding at the meetings. What administrative purposes had you in view?—/ think if, as in the Metropolitan Board of Works, it were expected of him that he should attend the various committees and make himself thoroughly acquainted with the whole business, and also upon certain occasions put himself in communication with other vestries, or with the Government, or with the Metropolitan Board of Works, as might be required; I do not mean in the way of agitation, but to communicate with the Government, or the Board of Works, or with other vestries upon matters common to each and mutually interesting to us. I think in that way he might be made extremely useful as an officer of the vestry. 6647. A sort of head of the local administration ?—As a sort of head of the local administration. 6648. In what manner would you have him appointed?—[He should be appointed as the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works is, by the members at a special meeting. There should be a three-year term, though Savage himself would prefer a permanent chairman, who could be removed by a two-thirds vote.}

Metropolitan Local Government

537

6649. I believe the very able permanent chairman you have at the Board of Works97 receives a salary?—He does. 6650. The other boards do not?—They do not. 6651. Should you recommend that the local permanent chairman should receive a salary also?—That is a matter to which I have given some consideration, and it does occur to me (without offering any dogmatical opinion about it) that if you called upon the chairman to perform the duties which I have suggested it would not be unreasonable that he should be remunerated, of course, upon a lower and more moderate scale than in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. 6652. Having regard to the administration of the metropolis under the direction of a certain number of select and paid permanent officers, you would probably see a considerable disadvantage in the administration being so minutely divided as it is at present; you would probably wish to give to each of the boards a larger area than they now have?—/ have not given so much consideration to the subject as I might have done if I had intended to go fully into that question; but I think there isforce in the way in which you put it. 6653. Are you acquainted with the plan that has been recently proposed for the division of the metropolis into municipalities, which would correspond nearly, but not exactly, with the Parliamentary districts?—/ have heard of it. 6654. Should you think that the districts proposed in that plan, which in some cases coincide with the Parliamentary districts, while, in other cases the division is rather smaller, would be a good basis on which to ground the local administration of the metropolis?—/ am not prepared to say; not having fully gone into it, I cannot give a decided opinion upon it. 6655. Have you, in your experience, been led to think that the divisions are at present too small or that no inconvenience arises from this smallness?—Many of them are very small; my attention has been drawn more directly to the larger ones, such as our own and some others, the City of London amongst them; we have, as you are aware, under the Metropolis Local Management Act several very large districts; the City sends to the Metropolitan Board three members, and the other six districts two members each. 6656. The magnitude of these districts is not much less than in the case of the proposed plan; and in the case of the City of London it is not at all less?—It is less. The parish of Islington, I may mention, comprises half the borough ofFinsbury. 6657. The difference between such a size as that of your district and the size proposed in the plan is only a difference of degree and detail?—That is all; I do think that the metropolis is split up into too many divisions; I am rather of that opinion, without having very deeply gone into the question, because, as I have said already, I have thought of the larger districts, and perhaps have not turned my 97

John Thwaites; see 231 above.

538

Appendix B

attention so much as I might have done to the smaller ones; but it has always struck me that they might well be amalgamated and fused into larger districts. [Savage reaffirmed his views as to the proper term for chairmen, and the size of districts.] 6667. In the proposed plan, as in the case of the recent Reform Bill, for Parliamentary purposes it is proposed that the Tower Hamlets should be divided into two districts, and the parts proposed to be taken from Finsbury and Marylebone to go to form an intermediate district of Bloomsbury ?—That would lighten the borough of Finsbury, which is in itself a very large borough. 6668. Your vestry sends two members to the Metropolitan Board?—Yes. 6669. You have been very regular in your attendance, I believe?—Tolerably constant. 6670. Has the same been the case with your colleague?—/ think I may say that he has been almost as constant as myself, but his health has not been so good for several months lately, and his attendance less regular. 6671. Do you find that the attendance of the deputed members of vestries is tolerably assiduous at the Metropolitan Board?—Yes, I think it is. We average 35 or 36 out of the 45 members. I consider that the attendance is very good: the average is aboutfour-fifths; and, considering that a few members come from great distances, and do not attend often, that makes the general attendance still more regular. 6672. Has the election of a temporary chairman of the vestry of Islington been the subject of dissensions in the vestry?—Yes; it has caused very many contests during the last five years to obtain the honour of the chair. 6673. You are aware that several of the vestries have come before this Committee by petition; I believe yours has not?—No; they have not taken any active part in the matter. 6674. Was that owing to the state of opinion in the vestry on the subject?—/ can hardly tell. They repose a good deal of confidence upon most matters in their representatives. They do not make us delegates in our own work, but leave us free to study their interests. They do not meddle so much with outside matters that do not more immediately concern their own business as some vestries do. 26 July William Edward Hickson98 [Mill began the questioning.] 6684. You have turned your attention a great deal to the subject of municipal administration generally, and to that of London particularly?—/ have. 98

William Edward Hickson (1803-70), City resident and writer.

Metropolitan Local Government

539

6685. You are a ratepayer of the City of London, and the owner of buildings in the City, are you not?—/ am. 6686. And you have been officially connected with commissions of inquiry, and have made a report of the state of the manufacturing districts, which was printed by order of the House of Commons in 1840?"—That was so. 6687. Are there any points in regard to the municipal administration of the metropolis on which you have any communication to make to the Committee?— [Had the question of municipal reform been properly tackled in the mid-1830s, when expectations and enthusiasms were high, moderate changes would have prevented the expenditure of the enormous sums now being raised, estimated at £3,500,000 for the Thames Embankment and the New Mansion House Street. ] 6688. In what way do you conceive these sums of money would have been saved?—[Actual savings would have been realized through the consolidation of jurisdictions, the abolition of useless posts, the reduction of salaries, and greater economy generally. The City of London provides an example of the abuses resulting from divided jurisdiction; Hickson's own rates and taxes illustrate the problems, and show that the burden in the City is much heavier than it is commonly stated to be.] 6689. Will you mention the items?—First there are the parochial and union rates, which consist, first, of two new church building rates, of6d. each. [In response to the Chair's probing, Hickson gave more details, then handed in an account of his rates and taxes, and answered further questions about it.] 6709. You include the whole direct taxation of the country, so far as it falls on real property?—The whole of what is called direct taxation (which I think a misnomer) comes, particularly in towns, upon house rent, and this burden is now getting to such an extent as to approach confiscation, and it checks and impedes most seriously the progress of building improvements in regard to those dwellings best adapted for the middle and working classes. [The Chair again went into details about the rates. ] 6720. Have you any suggestions to make with regard to the basis of the municipal taxation?—/ have a statement here, which I have drawn up to give a short and comprehensive digest of my views on this subject. [Hickson handed in the statement, and the Chair examined him on its meaning and implications. His final question elicited the response that a tax on furniture might be practicable, as on the Continent. ] ""Hand-Loom Weavers. Copy of Report by Mr. Hickson, on the Condition of the Hand-Loom Weavers" (11 Aug., 1840), PP, 1840, XXIV, 659-717.

540

Appendix B

6750. Are you aware that the tax on furniture in France is, in some cases, if not in all, virtually a sort of income tax, not being taken on a valuation of the furniture, but on an estimate made by the revenue authorities of what sort of furniture may be expected to belong to a person who lives in such a house?100—/ am not able to speak of furniture estimates as so formed, and should doubt its being a universal fact. 6751.1 am not aware that it is universal, but no doubt it must have been resorted to on account of the inconvenience, difficulty, expense, and liability to evasion which attended a valuation of the furniture?—Just so, when the valuation attempted had been unnecessarily minute. [Other potential sources of taxation were discussed, and then the questioning turned to property values. ] 6785. Are there any parts of London where the value has actually fallen?—/ should think there are many. In my own case, in St. Dunstan's, there certainly has been no rise in the value during the 20 years I have held the property. [The proper emoluments, qualifications, and election of the Lord Mayor of London came under discussion.] 6804. He would not be taken by rotation?—No, nor in the case of the new Court of Aldermen I have proposed should I have the aldermen elected by the whole of the ward. William Rendle101 [The Chair asked the identifying questions, and then Mill began.] 6901. You have turned your attention to municipal administration generally, and the local government of the Metropolis in particular?—Only in so far as it is connected with the condition of the lower classes, and more especially in connection with the question of public health. 6902. You have written on the subject?—/ have written on the subject,102 and the cause of my writings that I have put forth, partly in newspapers and partly in pamphlets, has been an utter dissatisfaction with the management of health matters connected with the poorest people. 6903. Will you state to the Committee anything you may be disposed to say upon that subject?—[Many known causes for illnesses of the poor could not be erased because poor law guardians and, after the Act of 1855, the officers of 100 "D6cret de 1'Assemble'e nationale du 13 Janvier 1791, sur la contribution mobilise," Archivesparlementaires, XXII (13 Jan., 1791), 169-72. 101 William Rendle (1811 -93), surgeon, at one time Officer of Health and later vestryman for St. George-the-Martyr parish, Southwark. 102 E.g., London Vestries, and Their Sanitary Work (London: Churchill, 1865), and Fever in London (London: Metropolitan Sanitary Association, 1866).

Metropolitan Local Government

541

health, had not the authority or means. He himself had resigned because he was not allowed to carry out the duties of his office.] 6904. Was this from want of power on the part of the board of guardians, or want of will?—[The problem lay not with the guardians, but with members of the vestry, some of whom did not understand the mode of implementing the new law, but also some of whom were obstructing because of corrupt motives. Faced with the impossibility of his position, he had resigned and, after one failure, was elected as a vestryman. ] 6905. Did you, in that character, renew your exertions to obtain a remedy of these evils?—It is since that time that I have used my influence amongst the vestrymen, many of whom are patients of my own, and among my friends, to work up a better state of things. 6906. Have you done so with any success?—Yes, principally owing to the exertions of one of my friends in the vestry and myself, we have lately obtained another inspector, and that inspector a most active man. Previously our visits were to a very few houses, but now perhaps we have 100 cases inspected every week, and the new inspector tells us that out of the 100 cases inspected, at least 90 of them (I think he said 39 out of 40) are in a very bad sanitary condition and absolutely require amendment. When I urged the appointment of the new officer, it was said that nothing of the sort was wanted, and that the old officer was going on very well, but it turned out that he did not generally inspect, but waited for complaints to be made. 6907. So far as concerns that particular parish, some improvement has been effected by the choice of more proper persons to the vestry, yourself being one?—It has; but the endeavour to improve has been such an up-hill fight as no one perhaps would willingly undertake, certainly not unless he had some independence behind him, for there is a great deal of offence arising out of it amongst neighbours. 6908. Do you think that the obstructions you met with arise from an unwillingness to incur expense for fear of increasing the rates, or from any interest that the members of the vestry have in keeping up the present state of things?—[Both motives operate. One bad practice is the use of influence by vestrymen to become paid officers. ] 6909. What would you recommend by way of remedy for these evils? Would you recommend a change in the mode of constituting the local boards, or the substitution of anything else for the present vestry system?—/ published a pamphlet entitled London Vestries and their Sanitary Work, at my own expense, and circulated it at my own expense. The Metropolitan Sanitary Association required me to read a paper on the same subject, which has also been published. I have endeavoured to show that the extension of disease amongst the poor is partly owing to neglect in the locality, and partly to neglect in the arrangements; and I have stated in one of the pamphlets that there must necessarily be, in order to

542

Appendix B

counterbalance the self-interests which are at work in small bodies, some power behind, readily to be got at, to which you can appeal, to compel the local body to do its manifest duty. 6910. Of what nature do you think the body should be to which the appeals should lie?—/ think it should not be a controlling, over-riding body, to destroy local representation or local power altogether; but that if, for instance, a respectable minority in a vestry or even a considerable number of ratepayers outside, who felt that their body, whether elected properly or not, were not carrying out their duties in a proper spirit, there should be a central body of a fully over-riding power in that matter, to come down and insist upon the local authority doing its duty according to law, or else to do the work itself and charge it to the local authority. 6911. Have you turned your consideration to the question of how this controlling body should be composed, or by whom it should be appointed?—/ do not think it should be the Metropolitan Board of Works, because I can see plainly the pressure put upon the representatives of the different vestries who form that Board. With regard, for instance, to a first-class water supply, which is so much wanted in the metropolis, I can fancy that the various interests in these bodies might influence the members and prevent the public good that we should expect; I would rather have a body to be called upon only now and then. I think it should be a Governmental authority, such an office as might come out of the Privy Council. 6912. A kind of department of health in the general government, or would it include other subjects besides public health?—[Rendle replied that he felt competent only concerning matters of public health. He then mentioned the difficulty of dealing with the problem in the parish.]

ii. SELECT COMMITTEE ON EXTRADITION "Report from the Select Committee on Extradition, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix" (6 July, 1868), PP, 1867-68, VII, 129-338.

12 May, 1868 Edmund Hammond1 [The questioning turned on the fact that a proposed treaty of 1859 between Britain and the U.S., extending extradition to embezzlement, was rejected by the U.S. partly because of a clause requiring that it be ratified by Parliament. There Edmund Hammond (1802-90), Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1854.

Extradition

543

had been no such clause in the Ashburton Treaty of 1842 (PP, 1843, LXI, 1-8), but it had been ratified by Parliament, and all recent treaties involving money or other matters requiring parliamentary sanction had included such clauses.} 56. It was on the proposal of the American Government, was it not, that the matter was taken into consideration at this time?—Yes, they proposed to extend the treaty in the same manner as the treaty with France of 1843 had been extended.2 To that treaty an additional article was added in 1845, and a further additional article in 1858, extending it to crimes which had not at first been included.3 57. Then did our Government object to extend the treaty to the case of embezzlement unless it were to include all embezzlement, and not merely embezzlement of public funds?—I presume they did, because it would have been of very little use to the mercantile community if it excluded general embezzlement, which they were very anxious to have included. [In response to the Chair, Hammond agreed that the British desire was to make it general. ] 59. However, the overture for an alteration in the Treaty came from the United States?—Yes, it came from the United States. [In the view of the witness, the negotiations substantively broke down over the question of embezzlement, though formally over parliamentary ratification. He recalled no controversy over piracy, though the governments differed over its definition.] 69. Are there any other instances than that of Anderson4 in which either America or this country have refused a case of extradition that was demanded under the Treaty?—/ am unable to say; because the Foreign Office has no cognizance of the intermediate stages between the issue of the warrant of apprehension and the warrant of extradition; but I have a list of a certain number of cases which have occurred since the new Act passed. [The questioning turned to the Treaty with France, and Hammond handed in a list of British demands for extradition since the Act of1866.5] 90. These then are cases that have occurred since 1866?—Yes. 2

"Convention for the Surrender of Criminals between France and the United States, signed at Washington, 9 Nov. 1843," in The Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Clive Parry (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1969), XCV, 393-7. 3 The first article added robbery and burglary, the second forgery, counterfeiting, and embezzlement (ibid., XCV, 398-401, and CXVIII, 325-6). 4 John Anderson, a runaway slave who had mortally wounded one of his pursuers, and whose extradition from Canada was demanded by the U.S. (see Annual Register, 1861, 520-8). 5 29 & 30 Victoria, c. 121 (1866), amending the extradition treaty. Mill spoke on this treaty in Parliament; see Nos. 36, 37, and 39.

544

Appendix B

[ On the matter of French complaints that England hardly ever extradited people to France under the original treaty,6 it was ascertained that a new treaty had been negotiated in 1852,7 but had not been passed by Parliament. France had eventually, in 1865, denounced the 1843 Treaty on six months' notice.*] 132. Do you mean that the draft of the new convention having failed to become operative, owing to Parliament's not passing the Bill that was presented to give validity to it, there was, between the failure of that attempt to make a new treaty in 1852 and the time when the French denounced the old treaty in 1865, no intermediate negotiation between the French Government and our own upon the subject?—Communications may have passed, but they did not assume the shape of a negotiation; in fact, I may say fairly, that it was felt to be hopeless to attempt to go to Parliament for an Act to give effect to such an extradition treaty as France would wish to have. [Discussion centred on the failure to negotiate extradition treaties with other states, owing, in Hammond's judgment, to the futility of taking to Parliament bills that would be thrown out. ] 163.1 think I have understood you to say that, within your official experience, it is only with France that there have been any difficulties about the actual execution of a treaty, and that the difficulties which have arisen there, have arisen from our requiring an amount of evidence which the French authorities do not think ought to be required?—In a few words that is about the state of the case, I think. [Discussion on difficulties in Parliament continued, and reference was made to the complaint by the French government about unequal treatment. ] 172. On what did the French complaint turn; was there any case of the delivery of any prisoner to Denmark who would not have been delivered to France?—/ believe that the French Government, having made a great number of treaties with different States, considered themselves very much aggrieved because England would not come into what they sometimes called a general law of Europe upon the subject of extradition. There could have been practically no complaint about a person having been actually given up to Denmark. The first person, I believe, given up to Denmark was given up the other day, and he was not a convicted person. 173. Was the fact this, that whenever we gave up a person to Denmark the ^'Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, for the Mutual Surrender, in Certain Cases, of Persons Fugitive from Justice" (13 Mar., 1843), PP, 1867-68, VII, 257. 7 "Convention between Great Britain and France, for the Mutual Surrender of Criminals," British and Foreign State Papers, 1851-52, XLI, 20-36. 8 See Henri Godfroi, prince de La Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraguais (1823-71), Letter to the Earl of Clarendon (4 Dec., 1865), PP, 1866, LXXVI, 373-4.

Extradition

545

Danish Government had to produce an amount of evidence which France was unwilling to produce in a similar case?—The Act of Parliament of 1866 applies to all treaties, and enables the magistrate to be satisfied with the same character of evidence from all countries. [The Chair ascertained that concerning evidence all treaties were on the same footing; the treaty with Denmark differed on a non-evidentiary matter, the inclusion of condamnes.9 ] 176. The difference between the treaties as regards the condamnes is of course a totally distinct question. In the case ofacondamne the only evidence would be the record of the condemnation, and proof of the identity of the person; no other evidence would be required?—Yes. Ill. But in the case of persons who are only accused, or who have been condemned par contumace, that other evidence would be required, and I suppose the evidence would be the same, whatever the country was?—Yes. 178. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground of complaint on the part of France that we have done for Denmark what we have not done for France?—No; not as regards the evidence on which extradition is granted; the Act was made purposely general to apply to all countries. [The witness developed at length his view that a general Act should be passed, giving in detail the permissible kinds of evidence and a definition of all extraditable crimes, without reference to reciprocal treaties, and then criminals could be deported to countries covered by specific Orders in Council. ] 205. We understand in what way you get rid, by your plan, of difficulties arising from the different definitions that the laws of the two countries may give of the same crime. But how would you meet another kind of difficulty which might require you to make a distinction between different kinds of acts which still come under the same category of crime in our own law? For instance, if there were to be a general Extradition Act, it would, of course, extend to murder; now, the most delicate cases of all are precisely the cases of those political offences in which the person demanded would, according to the law of our own as well as of any other country, be chargeable with the offence of murder, if the Government chose to prosecute him for it. For example, take the case of a person who shot a sentry from a political motive. If that act had been committed in this country, would not he be liable to be prosecuted for murder in this country, and if so, would he not, under the Act which you propose, be liable to be delivered up to the country claiming him?—The provision of the Act which I propose, of course, would be subject to limitations and restrictions; in the first place there would be the restriction that a 9

"Extradition Convention between Denmark and Great Britain" (15 Apr., 1862), in The Consolidated Treaty Series, CXXV, 465-70, Art. 1.

546

Appendix B

person should not be given up for a political crime; one of the clauses of the Act would be, "No one shall be delivered up under this Actfor apolitical crime," and also it would be provided that any man delivered up must be bona fide tried for the crime for which he is delivered up. [The question of politically motivated murders was discussed.} 208. The difficulty which we have now reached is exactly that which more than any other it is the business of the Committee to find a means of resolving, and the Committee would be extremely glad to receive any suggestion you could offer for that purpose. The difficulty is this: any disaffected person who for the purpose of changing the Government of a country, has attempted to raise a civil war, or in any way gone beyond speaking or writing, has technically made himself liable to a charge either of murder, or attempt to murder, or robbery, or some other crime which in other circumstances would be a proper subject for extradition. You do not want to surrender persons who have done what they have done solely as insurgents, but you do want to surrender them if they have done it in any other character. The difficulty is to suggest a mode of distinguishing the cases in which, although the origin of the offence may have had something to do with politics, still it is not a proper case for exemption, from the cases in which the general character of the offence is properly political, and such as you do wish to exempt. For instance, if a case has occurred of a person claiming the throne of a foreign country, who landed in that country and shot a sentry,10 there can be no doubt, I think, that in the general opinion of this country it would have been wrong to have delivered him up, supposing he had escaped to England. If, then, his extradition had been demanded upon a charge of murder, do you think that the general Act which you would like to have passed ought to be one that would have authorised extradition in that particular case?—It is much better to let a man go scotfree than to run the risk of exposing a person given up under an extradition treaty to be tried for a political offence. It is impossible to get at perfection, and I would, rather than run that risk, exclude from the operation of the Act, by a special clause, any crime committed in connection with apolitical crime; I think it is always understood that persons charged with political offences should not be given up. Under our present treaties we should certainly not give up a person charged with a political crime; but I am not sure whether we should be borne out in our refusal by the terms of the treaties. They must be construed in this instance by public policy. 209. It would not be possible, then, that the definition of the offence in the general Act should exactly coincide with the definition of the English law, because I apprehend that such an act as that to which I am referred, would have been murder, as well as treason, under English law?—The definition would, in the case supposed, be qualified by the special proviso. 10 An allusion to Napoleon III of France and his attempted coup at Boulogne (see No. 36, n8).

Extradition

547

210. Then you do not think that the Act ought to authorise the extradition of every person charged with murder, even though the evidence be conclusive that he committed it?—/ think it would be dangerous to do so if the murder was committed in connection with a political crime; the only way you could meet the difficulty would be by an understanding in some form or other, with the foreign Government, that if a man given up under such circumstances, should be acquitted of the murder, he is then to be returned to the asylum from which he was surrendered. 211. Then he is to be tried for the murder?—He would be tried for the murder, and if acquitted, would then be sent back to England. [If convicted, he would be executed.] 214. Let us take the case of the American war; one cannot call anything done by either of the belligerents, morally murder; but I apprehend that technically a rebel who kills anybody in battle, might be tried for murder?—The case of the Clerkenwell criminals would be the most appropriate case;11 persons doing an act which, by our law, would be murder, killing bystanders, for instance. [Dwelling further on political crimes, Hammond gave his opinion that, in the case of a Fenian killing a policeman for political motives, and fleeing to France, Britain could not ask for his extradition.} 233. Not for the crime of murder?—No. [Hammond's interpretation of the present treaties was that though they did not specifically exclude political crimes, because they were not included in the lists of extraditable crimes, they were excluded in practice. Therefore aperson accused of treason by assassination would not be given up.} 238. Might not there be a real intention of trying him for the offence for which he was given up, and yet the offence might have been political; for instance, that the alleged murderer had been concerned in an insurrection, or in some political act in which persons lost their lives?—/ think the mere fact of his being concerned in an insurrection would take his offence out of the category of crimes for which we should give persons up. 239. You think that under an Act which made murder a case of extradition, you could refuse to deliver up a political insurgent, although he might have shed blood?—Certainly; of course when such a case arose we should refer to the law officers of the Crown, and they would have to pronounce an opinion upon it. 1! In this incident, on 13 November, 1867, the Fenians attempted to rescue Richard Burke (1838-1922) and Joseph Casey, his assistant, from Clerkenwell prison in London. They blew a hole in the prison wall, the explosion killing twelve people, but did not succeed in freeing the prisoners. Michael Barrett (1841-69), who was convicted of the crime, was the last man to be hanged publicly in England.

548

Appendix B

[Under repeated questioning, Hammond, referring to his official capacity, refused to say whether he thought foreign governments might seek extradition on ordinary grounds for someone in fact suspected of political motives. ] 251. Might not a foreign government do that in perfect good faith?—Yes, they might do so in perfect good faith, and, of course, if we gave the man up we should be relying upon the good faith of the government to whom we gave him. 252. But although they might be in perfect good faith in demanding a person for the very offence for which they meant to try him, still might not that be an offence really political, and one which ought not to be made a case of extradition?—It might be so; there would be a choice of difficulties; but, on the whole, I think it would be much safer not to give the man up. 253. I mean without imputing any bad faith to the foreign government?— Certainly. 19 May Thomas Henry12 [Henry indicated that of six applications from France in two years, two were successful. He then gave the details of one of the latter, a case of fraudulent bankruptcy, when two unsuccessful appeals were made by the accused. During the examination the bankrupt's assignee appeared and gave oral evidence.13"] 292. Was the assignee cross-examined?—Yes; I ought to have mentioned that the man was defended by a solicitor and counsel; in fact, in all the cases I have known, the persons have been defended by solicitor and counsel, and they have had ample time and opportunity for preparing their defence. In this case, the first day when they appeared they said they were unprepared, and I adjourned the case for two days, I think, and then they came again and the case was fully gone into; they afterwards went before the Court of Queen's Bench. Perhaps the Committee would like to see a short report of the case. It is given in Clarke's Treatise on Extradition, which I have here, and it is also very fully reported in the Queen's Bench Reports.

[Henry indicated that the second successful application had special significance in clearing up a dispute over the meaning of French law. The law officers had held that a jugement par contumace was a condemnation, and therefore a person under such a sentence would not be extraditable; Henry's view, subsequently vindicated, was that it meant merely a conviction of contempt of court, and that subsequent trial under the substantive charge would follow extradition.] l2 Thomas Henry (1807-76), Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Court, and a negotiator with France for the treaty of 1866. '3See "Police," The Times, 23 and 29 May, 1866, both p. 11. The bankrupt was Victor Widermann (b. ca. 1831), and the assignee Adolph Picard.

Extradition

549

306. Perhaps that impression was founded upon the circumstance that a jugement par contumace, although it is not practically so, is technically a condemnation, since the sentence could not have been executed on his return to France without a trial?—Just so; we did not understand a judgment of that sort here, because we have no similar judgment in the courts of this country. [Henry averred that in England there was no such judgment in criminal courts, though there was in Ecclesiastical courts, and in civil causes there was judgment by default. ] 309. A judgment by default in civil cases can be executed, can it not?— Certainly; if the process of the court is served upon the person, you can go on in his absence in a civil cause, but never on any criminal charge. [Henry outlined the American case,14 in which embezzlement, not an extraditable offence under the Treaty, seemed clear, but the attempt to prove forgery failed. In the trial it emerged that while forgery was a State offence in New York, it was not a Federal offence, and the Treaty was of course with the Federal government. ] 352. There is no criminal law which applies to the United States generally, is there?—Our criminal law is generally used there, I believe. Still there are certain States which have passed Acts for themselves, which are binding upon all courts in that particular State. That was the case in the State of New York. However, the Court of Queen's Bench decided that that could not be taken into account, because it was an Act of the Legislature that was peculiar and applicable only to that State, and did not apply to the United States generally; therefore the man was discharged. [Questions were asked about the form of United States' depositions.] 355. If the Court had been satisfied that it was forgery according to the law of the United States, although not according to the English law, could the accused person have been delivered up?—[ When the point was raised in court, it had been ruled that there must be a common element. This was crucial, because offences are not easily equated in different jurisdictions. For example, fraudulent bankruptcy is defined differently in France and England, and, further, the English laws are subject to change over time. It was Henry's opinion that the word faux in French law corresponded to the English forgery.] 362. Are there not cases which are not forgery by our law, although they are faux by the French law?—/ am not aware of any. 363. It has been generally said that there are, has it not?—Of course in any extradition case we must be satisfied that it comes within both; at least that is the 14 The case of Charles Windsor, teller for the Mercantile Bank of New York, accused of forgery in 1865 under New York law. (See 122 English Reports 1288-91.)

550

Appendix B

received opinion upon extradition law. I may, perhaps, here observe that extradition law is comparatively in its infancy in this country. [In Henry's view, the law was working adequately, except that the number of specified offences was too small. He was not aware that a defence on political grounds had been made. ] 368.1 imagine, from the statement of cases you have given, that among the very small number of cases that have occurred, no such case has come before you?—No such case has come before me. 369. Supposing that the extradition of an accused person was demanded upon a charge of murder, and it should appear that the murder alleged consisted in killing some one in an act of insurrection, or attempted insurrection, should you, in such a case as that, consider yourself bound or at liberty to deliver him up?—/ should look at the depositions to see whether the case amounted to treason. If the case amounted to treason, then it would not be within the treaty, because the treaty does not include treason as one of the offences. 370. Do you think that by including murder, and not including treason, it would justify a court of justice here in refusing the surrender of any person who could have been tried for treason, for the same act for which he was demanded on a charge of murder?—The law of extradition expressly excludes political offences. In our treaty there is no clause to that effect; but it is well understood law, and it is laid down by all the French authors, but especially in a circular letter from the Minister of Justice addressed to all the magistrates in France,15 that in matters of extradition political offences are to be ignored; that is to say, no extradition is to take place for a political offence. 371. That might be interpreted to mean that a person who had committed a political offence, such as sedition, or an attempt at insurrection, though attended with any violation of life or property, could not be demanded under the treaty?—He could not. 372. That is clear?—Yes, it is. It would, perhaps, be right to mention to the Committee that that is generally laid down as a principle of French law, with regard to extradition, and all their treaties contain a clause, that political crimes are not to come within the treaty. I have here a copy of all their treaties; they are 53 in number. [All French extradition treaties, Henry established, contained a clause excluding political crimes, except three in which an additional clause made applicable crimes against the head of government.16] 15

"Circulaire du ministre de la justice du 5 septembre 1841, relatant les principes de la matiere d'extradition," App. 7 of the present report, 288-90. 16 The treaty with Belgium (22 Nov., 1834, in Consolidated Treaty Series, LXXXIV, 457-63) referred to in the next questions expressly excluded political crimes in Art. 5. It was modified by an additional convention of 22 September, 1856 (ibid., CXV, 437-9).

Extradition

551

384. So that it appears that by the interpretation of the French Government, proved by this public act, of concluding a supplemental treaty, they could not, under the extradition treaties, have demanded even a person who attempted the life of the Emperor of the French?—They could not previously to the supplemental treaty. [Henry referred again to the circular letters binding French magistrates not to claim persons for political crimes, so the lack of such a clause in the British Treaty made no practical difference.] 387. Was there in the original treaty between France and Belgium any special provision against the delivery of political offenders?—There was; I will read the words in the first treaty which relate to it; it is dated the 12th December 1834: "II est expressement stipule que I'etranger dont I'extradition aura ete accordee ne pourra dans aucun cas, etre poursuivi oupunipour aucun delit politique anterieur a I'extradition oupour aucun fait connexe a un semblable delit, nipour aucun des crimes ou delits nonprevuspar lapresente convention;" that was the first Belgian treaty. [The question arose as to the status in French law of the circular letter which, Henry opined, was effectively law, France not being quite like England in that respect. ] 401. But, then, could not any future Minister of Justice or of the Interior (whichever it is that issued it) revoke that circular letter?—Then if he did that we could revoke the treaty. [Henry reaffirmed the effective status of the circulatory letter.] 406. That is good evidence no doubt of what the present views of the French Government are upon the subject, but those views may change?—No doubt. [The circular letter, dating back as far as 1841, expresses rather the French government's view than its treaty duties.] 408. There are two questions; one is whether a person whose extradition is demanded for forgery, or some other offence, may be tried for something else, which something else may be a political offence; that is clearly precluded by the article you read in the Belgian Treaty, except so far as that is modified by the subsequent treaty. But is not it consistent with the article in the Belgian Treaty, that the very offence on which a person might be demanded upon a charge of murder, or some offence against property, might really be a political one, as in the case of the deserter who shot the gendarme?—If the original demand was for one offence they could not under any circumstances try him for a different offence. 409. But suppose they had made their demand originally for an offence which may include cases really political, though it is not peculiarly a political offence, such as murder. If they had made a demand for a person upon a charge of murder,

552

Appendix B

no doubt they could not have tried the person upon any charge except that murder, but might they not have tried him for that murder, although it might have been a political murder?—Under the first treaty they could not. 410. You are sure of that?—Yes, I am sure of that, but now it is a different thing, in consequence of the supplemental treaty. France leaves to every country the right of judging what is a political offence. I particularly inquired when I was in Paris, and indeed since, whether they had any definition in their code, or in any of their books, as to what was a political offence, and they said, "No, it would be impossible to have a definition of it; we must leave to every country to judge what they deem apolitical offence, and if they so deem it, to refuse to deliver up a per son demanded." 411. There they would have no ground of complaint against us in whatever manner we defined a political offence?—Yes, but they thought that question was likely to arise between France and Belgium, they being adjoining countries, and both sovereigns considered that it was desirable at that time to have the clause inserted which I have read. [The issue of defining crimes arose, and Henry pointed out that English judges already had to take account of French law, for example, concerning bankruptcy. ] 447. As well as the English?—Yes, it must be both. That is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice; at present there must be what he calls a common element.17 [Henry was examined further on the inclusion of defined extraditable crimes.] 496. If those offences were included which you think should be included in the Extradition Treaties, do you not think that political offences might be brought within them?—/ do not think any of the offences I would put in would be such that political offences could be included in them. 497. You would include murder?—Yes; no doubt the question might arise upon a charge of murder, as in the case which I put where in the Italian war a man shot a gendarme in Italy and escaped to France. [Henry would include attempts to murder which also, of course, might then be ruled to be political. ] 499. You would have full power of receiving any evidence admissible by our own legal rules, to prove, not that the act had not been done, but that it was, properly speaking, political, and not murder or robbery?—Yes. 500. If that was made out to your satisfaction, or if such a case was made out as you would have acted upon if it had been a case beginning and ending in our own country, you would think yourself justified in not delivering up the person?—/ should. I should say you have made a charge against the accused of murder, but 17

See the answer to Q. 355, concerning the Charles Windsor case.

Extradition

553

the charge really against him is treason; treason is not in the treaty, and therefore I cannot give him up; your warrant is for a different offence from that which he has really committed. 501. You would consider yourself at liberty to limit the technical or legal meaning of the word murder, so that it should not include any case that admits of being charged as treason?—Yes, I should in an extradition case. [Discussion of French procedures included the timing for cross-examination.] 525. At what stage of the proceedings?—When the case comes before the Cour d'Assises. 526. That is, at the final trial?—Yes. 521. Therefore, that does not apply to the depositions sent to you?—No, it does not; it could not be otherwise where an accused had absconded before a warrant was issued. [In Henry's view, the French sent all depositions on to the British when a case was in issue, although they said only that those sent were "the depositions." ] 532. It might be only that they might think there was enough already, and that it would be superfluous to send more?—Yes. 533. Yet, if they did send more, it might lead to the discovery of flaws in the evidence?—/ have always the power to say, I will remand this case; and as there were other depositions taken, I require them to be sent over. [Concerning French interpretation of political crimes, Henry was of opinion that particular circumstances would determine whether an attempted assassination was political or not. ] 564. Supposing that a political motive existed, and that no other motive was alleged?—Then it would be clearly treason. 565. That being so, you think that the extradition treaties would not extend to that case?—No, certainly not, as they exist at present, with the exception of Belgium and the Pontifical States, and Chili. 566. And then only by virtue of special supplemental engagements, limited to attempts upon the life of members of the Royal family?18—Yes; that takes them out of the general rule. [An attempt upon a member of a royal family, if made for private motives, would not exempt from extradition.} 569. But it is clear to you, that where the motive is political, a man cannot be given up, although he may have committed murder?—There is not the slightest 18 See Extradition Convention between France and the Holy See (19 July, 1859), in Consolidated Treaty Series, CXXI, 7-12, Art. 9, and Extradition Treaty between Chile and France (11 Apr., 1860), ibid., CXXII, 79-81, Art. 7. For Belgium, see n!6.

554

Appendix B

ground for apprehension with regard to that. The moment you show that it is treason, it becomes political, and is not the offence with which the man was charged. [Again it was affirmed that France's extradition treaties included a clause exempting political offences. ] 579. That is not the case with the treaty between France and England, is it?—It is most curious that that was excepted; I cannot tell why. [Attention being called to the anomaly that a person accused of murder could avoid extradition if also accused of treason, Henry indicated that the law or treaty could be so framed as to avoid the problem. ] 607. Will you inform the Committee what mode you would suggest of drawing the distinction?—Yes; you might draw the line at any attempt to overturn the Government, for example. I do not know whether the House of Commons might wish to go so far as that; am I merely asked my own opinion about it? 608. Merely your own opinion?—/ think the exception, with regard to political offences, goes rather too far in France. 609. What would you think, for instance, of such a definition as this: that if an act charged as murder had, if committed at all, been committed in the course of an insurrection, or for the purpose of inciting to insurrection, with a view to change the Government, it should be considered a political offence; but, if not, it should be considered an ordinary offence?—That is to say, if it was in a state of civil war. 610. If it was in a state of civil war, or if it was done for the purpose of inciting to civil war?—That would apply to the Clerkenwell case,19 because it may be that the Fenians who blew up the Clerkenwell prison wanted that as a commencement. 611. Still, all the evidence would tend to show that they only wanted to release the prisoners?—Yes. [Henry was of opinion that clauses could be worded so as to distinguish between shooting a policeman or soldier in an insurrection or seditious riot, and shooting him in the back on the street. ] 622. Would you be able to state to the Committee in what way it could be defined?—/ should require a little time, if that is to be reduced to writing; I am not prepared, sitting in this chair, at this moment, to draw up an Act of Parliament which would meet that object, and give a definition. [Given time, he would have no objection to attempting such a definition.] 624. You alluded to another distinction which might be drawn, and which might be important; for instance, it might be proper to treat as murder the killing of 19

Seenll.

Extradition

555

anyone in a seditious riot which was not an insurrection; that would just cover the case of the Clerkenwell people, or the Manchester people;20 because when the object is merely to obstruct the operations of the Government, but without any prospect or design to effect a change in the Government, it is much more desirable to check that than the other?—Yes; I had that distinction in my mind. [As to the case of a person condemned par contumace, the same evidence would be required as for anyone else.} 636. He would be treated like any other accused person?—Yes, we call him an accuse. 26 May Thomas Henry, continued [After discussion of several French terms, the witness said he would never act on his own knowledge of their meaning, but only with expert advice.] 699. Is it not the practice in France, when persons who are present and persons who are absent are charged with being concerned in the same crime, to find those who are present guilty, and condemn those who are absent par contumace, the only reason for considering them contumacious being that they could not be found in the country to serve the process upon?—/ believe that is so; but that is a matter which I would rather leave to a French advocate also.

[Referring back to his last answer to Mill, Henry said he had assumed that Mill meant it was impossible to serve the process. ] 705. I meant only so far impossible to serve him, that the person could not be found in the country?—Yes, when he cannot be found. [Henry read his proposed clause concerning political offences: "No person shall be claimed or surrendered for apolitical offence; political offences shall be deemed to be such offences as are committed by persons engaged in insurrection or rebellion against a reigning Sovereign or Government; but any attempt against the life of any reigning Sovereign, or against the life of any member of his family, shall not be deemed a political offence within the terms of the treaty." The wording came under question.] 721. Would it not be necessary to add not merely offences committed by a person in insurrection but acts committed with a view to excite insurrection, because the act in question may be the first step in an insurrection, as, for instance, 20

Colonel Thomas James Kelly (1833-1907) and Captain Timothy Deasy (ca. 1838-88) were being conveyed through Manchester in a prison van on 18 Sept., 1867, when some of their fellow Fenians attempted to rescue them by storming the van. A guard was killed, and three Fenians, later known as the "Manchester martyrs," were hanged: Michael Larkin, Michael O'Brien, and William Philip Allen (1848-67).

556

Appendix B

in the case in evidence of a person claiming a throne and invading a country; the first act which he might do might subject him to a charge of murder, and yet he could not be said to have been engaged in insurrection previously, because the act would have been the first overt act of insurrection?—/ think it would be desirable to add that; but I did not feel at liberty to go much further than I have done. [After questions concerning Orders in Council, Mill turned to another topic.] 725. You mentioned the case of Miiller?21—/ did. 726. What evidence was furnished to the American Courts in that case?—/ sent over what I considered very full depositions, and I sent over two warrants of arrest by different packets. I believe it was the first time that that had been done, but I considered that it was perfectly legal to do it. It was important that the officer who arrived first should have the opportunity of arresting Miiller, and not knowing which would arrive first, I sent two warrants. 727. Did you send any person to give oral evidence?—Yes; I was going on to add, that I recommended that some of the material witnesses should accompany the officer, and I believe that it was fortunate that I did so. 728. Does it appear to you unreasonable in itself, apart from the objections which some foreign governments might feel, that it should be necessary, whenever the extradition of any person is applied for, to send some witness capable of being cross-examined, who could testify to the main facts of the case?—/ think it would not be practicable. I think so much objection would be made to it, that they would rather decline to make applications than submit to that condition. 729. You think, however, that it was fortunate that you did so in the case of Miiller?—/ believe it was. 730. If you had not, do you believe that the case could not have been established against him?—/ do not go quite that length, but I handed in, last time I was examined, a report of what took place before the magistrate, in New York, in that case; I judge from that; but if the Committee would like to know what took place before the American magistrate, the inspector who went over there and heard everything, could be examined; it was Inspector Tanner. [Questioning centred on the interpretation of terms.] 748.1 understand you to say that, by the present practice, and, as you conceive, by the present law, the country upon whom a demand is made has a right to define what is a political offence, for which they will not deliver up: would it not, then, be 21 Franz Miiller (1840-64), a German tailor living in London, was accused of the murder of Thomas Briggs (1793-1864) on a railway train, 9 July 1864. The dramatic case, extensively reported in The Times, involved his being pursued to New York on a faster vessel by Chief Inspector Richard Tanner and two witnesses: John Death, a jeweller, and Jonathan Matthews, a cabman. He was arrested when his boat landed, extradited, tried, and hanged. (See, e.g., "The Surrender of Franz Muller," The Times, 13 Sept., 1864, 10.)

Extradition

557

better that the treaty should merely exclude the delivering up of all political offenders, leaving the decision as to what are political offences to the surrendering country; and do you not think that any definition of what is a political offence, or any rule to be laid down, as it could be only a rule to be laid down for the guidance of our own courts, would be better laid down in an Act of Parliament than in a treaty?—/ think it would. I only prepared this as the Committee requested me to do so. [Henry reaffirmed his view that the French took great care in criminal proceedings.} 755.1 understood you also to say that the depositions furnished to you in support of a demand for extradition are furnished in a stage of the proceedings at which the accused person has had no opportunity of cross-examination?—Yes, just so; and it is entirely ex parte evidence which has not been subjected to the amount of scrutiny to which it would be subjected before you. That is necessarily so, because the accused person has gone away; and, therefore, any evidence which is taken must of necessity be taken in his absence. 756. Unless he has escaped?—He was not forthcoming; there was no opportunity of having him present. The depositions before our tribunals before the warrant is granted are taken ex parte. In that case they are not called depositions; they are called informations, but they are taken ex parte. 757. But if a person charged before you, who did not attend to the summons, and against whom depositions had to be taken in his absence, was afterwards apprehended, would he not be brought again before you, and would not his case be again heard before he was committed?—Yes. 758. In that case he would have an opportunity of saying whatever he could say in his defence, and of producing counter evidence, if it were in his power to do so?—Yes; no doubt our system is better in that respect. 759. Therefore the depositions taken before you are a stronger assurance of there being a good primd facie case against the accused person than the depositions taken in France are?—We cannot alter their practice in that respect. [The treaty between France and Belgium provided that a person accused of attempted assassination of a sovereign, even from political motives, would be given up.] 764. But that is under a supplemental treaty, is it not?—Yes. 765. Which supplemental treaty France, if I understand you rightly, has with only three countries?—Yes. 766. I think you said that those were Belgium, the Papal States, and Chili?—Yes. [The examination returned to the question of whether the depositions sent by the

558

Appendix B

French were complete, Henry reaffirming that he believed them to be so, but could not prove them so.] 793. Is that which is sent called the dossier!—It is; it is the name known in their chambers. 794. Is it certified to be the dossier, or is it certified to be an extrait du dossier!—It is not an extrait; / never saw an extrait. 795. It is certified; but there is no certificate from which you could tell that what is sent is the whole, though you think it is?—Yes; that is the form in which it comes. [Contrasts between French and English procedure were discussed.] 818. In any case you would not deliver up any one on these depositions, until he had been heard upon the effect of the depositions, and had an opportunity of disproving what the depositions stated?—Yes, he or his counsel would have that opportunity. 819. But they would not have the advantage of cross-examination; that they could not have under the circumstances?—No; but if they could afford to bring over evidence to disprove what was stated in the depositions, they would have the opportunity of doing so. 820. They would be allowed to comment upon the depositions, and to raise any argument founded upon their not having had an opportunity of crossexamination?—They would; and they have introduced that argument in nearly every case. Henry Thurstan Holland22 [The witness mentioned, in connection with engagements for extradition by colonies, the case of Malta and Italy.] 827. Would there be the power of trying an Italian subject in Italy, for a crime committed in Malta?—/ think the Italian Government would have that power. 828. But we should not?—No; a colonial court could not try for offences committed out of the colony, except in certain cases specified by Imperial Acts. [A British subject could be tried in England or Ire land for a murder committed anywhere.] 830.1 believe the French Government had not that power until a recent Act was passed in France, by which French subjects were enabled to be tried on their return to France for crimes committed in foreign countries?—An article was inserted in the Code in I866.23 831.1 believe they had not that power before?—Possibly not. 22

Henry Thurstan Holland (1825-1914), legal adviser to the Colonial Office. Art. XI, Bull. 1400, No. 14,336, in App. 2 of the present report, 238.

23

Extradition

559

[The questioning was miscellaneous.] 837. Under the convention which concerns Malta,24 could political offenders be demanded?—There is no mention made of political offenders; but they would not be surrendered, I apprehend, according to the general rule. It has always been understood that political offenders are not to be given up. 838. What is the date of that convention?—The date of the convention is 1863. 839. Was there any convention previously between the Maltese authorities and any of the Italian Powers before the kingdom of Italy was constituted?—None. I have desired inquiry to be made into that point, and I can find none. [Inter alia, the arrangements between the British West Indies and Venezuela were discussed. ] 900.1 believe it is said that in some of the Spanish American States, it is usual for brigands to describe themselves as patriots, and to assume the guise of insurgents against the reigning power, and cover their acts by that means. In such a case as that, have you any idea by what considerations a Colonial Government would be guided in determining whether to surrender or to refuse to surrender a person charged with brigandage?—/ apprehend that if there is a scintilla of political motive; if there is any political character in the offence of any sort or kind, they would refuse to give the man up. [Reference was made to the refusal to give up to French Guiana people who had merely fled to British Guiana.] 912. If I rightly understand what you said, it would have been necessary to have delivered up those persons, if it had been in Malta?—After the ordinance had been passed, I think it would have been necessary to have given up persons charged with any of the crimes specified. 913. Breaking prison was included among the cases for which there was to be extradition there?—Yes; I think it was included. 914. In that case, if it had been in Malta, the authorities would have examined whether the refugees had been imprisoned for a political offence or not?—/ should rather imagine that it would be for a prisoner who was charged, and brought up before a magistrate, to set up the defence. If he could in any way set up that it was a political offence, he would be allowed to do so. That has always been the case before our magistrates in the American cases; the offender has always been allowed to set up the defence that he was acting under orders from the Confederate Government. 915. So that, although breaking prison is an offence for which extradition can in that case be demanded, still, if the person was in prison for a political offence, his breaking prison would also be considered a political offence, and he would not be 24

Malta, Ordinance No. 1 of 1863, App. 3 of the present report, 239-41.

560

Appendix B

surrendered?—It would be rather difficult to give a distinct answer to that question. I should think he would not be surrendered if he had been imprisoned for a political offence. [Concerning the Guiana case, the British had issued an Ordinance25 providing for delivery of escaped convicts, on the presentation of evidence of the conviction, identity, and escape; it was not put into effect, however, as the French refused to pass a corresponding law.} 924. If the French had consented to come under a corresponding obligation, and the Colonial Ordinance had come into force, would it have been necessary under that ordinance to give up a person who had escaped from confinement, having been placed in confinement as a political offender?—/ should think certainly not; it would not have been necessary to give up political offenders who had escaped from confinement. 925. My question refers to this; if nothing was requisite to be produced but evidence of the conviction, the identity, and the escape, it seems as if the country from whom extradition was demanded were precluded from entering upon the question of how the person came to be imprisoned?—/ should imagine not; I speak with diffidence, because I have not had much experience upon the matter; but I understand that it is an implied rule governing all these treaties and conventions, that political offenders are not to be given up. Sir Thomas Henry said that if a prisoner came before him, whether he was accused of crime, or had escaped from prison, if he could show that he was really imprisoned for a political offence, or that he was only accused of apolitical offence, he would not be surrendered. 926. If a colonial legislature were to pass an Act, by which they should be empowered or required to surrender political offenders, you think that, according to the principles acted upon in the Colonial Office, the Royal sanction to that Act would be refused?—/ should incline to think so. [The examination turned to colonies in the East Indies.] 960. Before the surrender of any person upon the demand of the Sultan of Borneo, or any other Asiatic prince, what kind of previous examination takes place?—It is only in the case of Borneo that we have such an arrangement;26 it does not apply to any other Asiatic prince. 961. The Rajah of Quedah?—That treaty is under consideration yet, but it is substantially in the same form21 The application is made to the Governor in each 25

British Guiana, Ordinance No. 2 of 1861. "Ordinance of the Government of Labuan, for Facilitating the Apprehension and Surrender of Certain Offenders Escaping to Labuan from the Dominions of the Sultan of Borneo" (4 Feb., 1857), British and Foreign State Papers, 58 (1867-68), 754-6. 27 "Treaty between Great Britain and Spain, Respecting Quedah" (6 May, 1869), ibid., 59(1868-69), 1147-50. 26

Extradition

561

case; the Governor then issues his warrant to any magistrate to aid in apprehending, and the magistrate inquires into the case. If he is satisfied, he certifies back to the Governor that he is satisfied, and the Governor issues his warrant of delivery. [Depositions would be sent, but were not governed by a specific clause.] 963. Is there a British resident, or any other British agent, at the Court of the Sultan of Borneo or the Rajah of Quedah?—Not at Quedah; the British resident is at Siam. Quedah is under the authority of the King ofSiam. [The Governor ofLabuan is also the agent for Borneo.] 965. Are you aware what used to be the practice under the East India Company's government with regard to the extradition of persons demanded by the native princes?—No, I cannot say that I am. 966. Are you aware that in most cases there was a right on the part of the native Government to demand prisoners in certain cases, but that when there was, as there usually was, a Resident or other political officer stationed at the Court of a native Prince, the trial which the person underwent when delivered up was virtually a trial by that British officer; because, although it might be ostensibly by the tribunal of the native Prince, it was the duty of the Resident to watch over the proceedings, and he had a right to be fully cognisant of them, and, in fact, no sentence could be passed of which he did not approve?—/ was not aware of that. [The arrangements between Hong Kong and China came under examination.] 982. Do you find that, in the case of China, that takes place which takes place very often with the Native princes of India, namely, that insurgents are demanded as robbers?—/ do not think we have any case in the Colonial Office of any insurgent having escaped to Hong-Kong, and being demanded. The truth is we have very few cases indeed in the office that I can find, but I can quite understand the possibility of such a case. 983. The usual practice of the Native princes in India is to demand those as robbers whom they wish to punish as insurgents?—/ can quite understand that. 9 June Edmund Hammond, resumed [It emerged that there were cases in which individuals had been given up to Britain where treaties did not exist, simply out of good disposition.] 1068. Are there any instances in which we have delivered up any person in that unofficial way, as a matter of complaisance^—/ should think not; but Sir Thomas Henry could best speak to that. [Hammond amplified his previous evidence on several matters.]

562

Appendix B

1094. Did I rightly understand you upon the former occasion to say, that although you think that offenders should not be delivered up, if there is even a slight tinge of politics in the offence, yet you saw a difficulty in providing against that by the terms of treaties?28—[Yes; there is no provision in our existing treaties for exempting political offenders from surrender; but the thing is understood, and we certainly, I think, should object to giving them up, I believe Sir Thomas Henry the other day quoted an instruction of the French Government to their different prefets, saying that a man was not to be given up who was charged with a political crime. That, of course, as between the French Government and their own officers, is quite sufficient; but internationally it is not sufficient, because it involves no international obligation between France and England. I only wished to make the observation because there was some stress laid upon that letter of the French Minister to preTets. Internationally it involves no obligation, though in the improbable supposition that the French would ask for a political offender, of course we should feel ourselves at liberty to quote it against them. 1095. But Sir Thomas Henry, besides referring to that instruction, also said that in all the numerous extradition treaties between the French Government and other nations, with the exception of that with England, there is an express provision that political offenders are not to be surrendered?29—/ have not examined the treaties carefully, but I think most probably that is the case, because it would be in the spirit of the French instructions. 1096. Those treaties, of course, are internationally valid?—Wherever that provision is contained in an extradition treaty, of course it is internationally valid; but there is no international validity in the instructions to the prefets. 1097. If those treaties are found to work well, do you see any difficulty or objection to our having such a provision in any future treaty we may enter into?—No; certainly we ought to have such an article. I should be very glad indeed, if we could make an arrangement that a man given up for a crime should, after being tried for that crime, be sent back to this country if he was acquitted; but we should have great difficulty in reciprocating it. The case ofLamirande was somewhat similar; the French Government said, "We have got him, and we cannot legally give him up." That was precisely the answer we should make in England in a similar case. 1098. Might you not have an alternative provision, that each Government, if such a case arose, should either send the man back, or set him at liberty; and although we could not, consistently with our own law, send him back, we could consistently with our own law set him at liberty?—Yes; but you could not put him in the same position of security in which he stood before he was given up. Many a man is set at liberty at the Old Bailey, and re-arrested at the door. 28

In his answers to Qs. 216 and 246. In his answers to Qs. 578-9.

29

Extradition

563

1099. In order not to demand from foreign Governments what we were not prepared to reciprocate, we might be obliged to give that alternative, instead of stipulating that he should be sent back to the country from whence he had been taken, since we could not comply with that condition on our own side?—/ think it would be very illusory, because, even supposing you prevented his being tried again, you would leave him under the surveillance of the police of the country in which he was set at liberty, and therefore the man would not be in the same position as if he had been sent back to England. But I apprehend that, in passing an Act of Parliament, there would be very little difficulty in making provision for the supposed case in the Act, and as the Act of Parliament would be special in all its circumstances, one speciality more or less would not signify much. 1100. You see no reason why we should not pass an Act of Parliament which would authorise us, in the case of the acquittal of any person who had been surrendered by France, or any other country, to send him back to that country; you see no objection to our binding ourselves to do that by treaty, and passing an Act of Parliament to enable us to do it?—/ see no objection to it at all; it would be something like the Alien Act.30 Whether there would be any constitutional difficulty, I cannot say; you might pass a special Act, but it would be to meet a particular case which might never occur. 1101. It would be very different from the Alien Act, would it not?—Yes; I am only mentioning that with regard to sending a man out of the country. We had power under the Alien Act to send a man out of the country. I can see no reason why we should not have a similar power in the case supposed. 1102. It would not be liable to the objections which have been raised to the Alien Act, would it?—No. Richard Mullens31 [Concerning the difficulty of proceeding in cases of fraud, Mullens mentioned the case of Heilbronn,32 who fled first to France and then to the U.S., whence he was extradited, but was found not guilty of forgery. ] 1157. Was this man convicted for larceny on a separate indictment?—Yes; he was charged on two separate indictments, one for forgery and the other for stealing. [Heilbronn had not claimed protection subsequently. The case ran from 1853 to the end of 1854, as Mullens recollected.] 1160. Was it at the Old Bailey?—Yes, it was at the Old Bailey. 30

33 George III, c. 4 (1793), a temporary act renewed from time to time with modifications, but fallen into disuse after 1843. 31 Solicitor to the Association of Bankers. 32 Alexander Heilbronn, whose extradition from the U.S. in March 1854 is reported in 12 New York Legal Observer 66.

564

Appendix B

[Mullens asserted that all extradition cases, including those of persons found in Scotland and Ireland, should be held in one central court in London, where the cases would be examined most carefully. ] 1180. You think that when a foreign government asks for extradition, we ought to give the accused person the benefit of the best criminal tribunal we have?—/ think so, I think we ought to have a thorough investigation, and only to give up persons in cases in which we are thoroughly satisfied. [The interrogation turned to preliminary proceedings in extradition cases.] 1193. What do you think of the admission of written depositions?—/ think you could not obtain extradition without them. Take the case of America. In Windsor's case they sent over depositions. If I recollect right, I doubted in the first instance whether those depositions were sufficient, and I had to send again for more. [Mullens was of opinion that someone accused, acquitted on the offence specified in the warrant of extradition, could be tried for another offence, provided it was on the same facts.] 1209. Then he would be tried for the same act, though it might be a different crime?—Yes. [The French Treaty is such that only one offence could be specified in a warrant. ] 1216. As I understand it, the treaty with America would not prevent our trying a man upon a different offence from that for which he has been given up?—It would not; there is no stipulation that he shall not be tried for another offence. 1217. Would you wish to extend that state of things to other countries?—With regard to America I have never found any difficulty about it; but since I have heard the question discussed in this room, I began to think a little more about it, and with regard to the continent of Europe we might consider it necessary that there should be some stipulation as to what should happen to a man if he was acquitted of the crime with which he was charged in the extradition warrant. [If someone is accused of a crime other than that given in the warrant, he should, with the permission of the other government, be tried for it.] 1222. If that were the case, might he not be tried for a political offence also?—He might. 1223. Do you think that that would be desirable?—Certainly not. 1224. How would you guard against it?—That was one of the points I was coming to. In any convention, or in any Act of Parliament, or in any arrangement we might enter into, there should be an express stipulation that no person should be delivered up for a political offence.

Extradition

565

[The effect should be that no one should be tried for an offence not stipulated in a treaty, and that political offences should be excluded. ] 1227. The offence must not only be one arising out of the same facts, but it must also be an offence mentioned in the extradition treaty?—Yes; I think so; it must be an offence for which he could have been delivered up if his extradition had been first demanded upon it. [Questioning continued on the problems of trial for more than one crime.] 1230. Is not there this difficulty; the supposition is, that a man is delivered up upon a charge of larceny, and you have reason to suppose that he has committed the crime of murder. Before he could be delivered up on the ground of larceny, prima facie evidence must be adduced of his being guilty of larceny?—Yes. 1231. In the case supposed, in which there was no previous idea of trying him for murder, no prima facie evidence would have been adduced in the country delivering him up of his being guilty of murder, and therefore he would have been delivered up for trial without the security of prima facie evidence adduced in the country delivering him up, that he was guilty of that crime?—He would never, or at least under very rare circumstances indeed, be put upon his trial here without an examination before a magistrate, which would give notice of the fact that he was charged with that crime. 1232. Undoubtedly; but it seems to be admitted that before any person is surrendered for murder, there must not only be security that he shall be regularly tried in the country which receives him, but also a preliminary investigation in the country delivering him up, and prima facie evidence must be adduced in that country, such as would justify his committal for trial in that country by the laws of that country. If so, and if a person was demanded, and prima facie evidence adduced against him of one crime, and he were afterwards to be tried in the country receiving him upon another, he would be tried without the security of the prima facie evidence of that second crime adduced in the country delivering him up, since the prima facie evidence which would have been there adduced, would have been only prima facie evidence of the crime for which he was surrendered, and not of the other on which he was subsequently tried?—Yes, it wasfor that reason that I threw out the suggestion, that the consent of the Government delivering him up should be asked, before he was tried for some other offence than that for which they gave him up. [Questions were raised about the undesirability of immunity from prosecution of someone who stayed in the U.K. after having been acquitted on the charge for which he was extradited, when evidence of his guilt on another charge was subsequently discovered. ] 1237. Would not that case be exactly met by a stipulation to be inserted in the

566

Appendix B

treaties, that after a person had been acquitted of the crime for which he was charged, he should be sent back to the foreign country which delivered him up; we should then be able again to demand his surrender for the other crime, provided we could produce primd facie evidence of it, that was satisfactory to the tribunal of the other country?—Yes. [Some treaties expressly gave the acquitted the choice of staying or returning. ] 1239. But in this case he would not perhaps accept the option of being sent back. Might he not have the option of either being put upon his trial at once for the other crime or of being sent back for a preliminary examination in the country which had given him up?—/ do not think that he should be sent back. 1240. The case is this: he has been acquitted or perhaps convicted, of a minor crime, and it may be desired to try him for a greater crime, such as murder: should you see any objection to allowing him the option I have mentioned, that is, to try him for the murder here unless he claims to be sent back to the country which had given him up; and if he does so, then to demand his extradition afresh, and produce the requisite primd facie evidence against him?—/ should not go through that formality. If we were prepared here with the evidence of another crime, I would not give him the option of going back to the country which delivered him up, but I would at once apply to the other Government for its consent to our trying him for the other offence. 1241. But what if the other Government said it could not give its consent except in primd facie evidence of the commission of the greater crime. It probably would do so, if it was a Government like ours which really requires primd facie evidence of the crime before it grants extradition. I apprehend we should make the absence of an examination here an objection to giving our consent to the prisoner's being tried for another crime abroad?—We should have no difficulty in sending to the foreign Government the depositions upon which the man might be committed for trial for the second offence. [Someone who took the option of return, might, if faced with another charge implying extradition, flee to a third country that had no treaty with the U.K. ] 1244. In such a case might not the practice be adopted of delivering him up to the officers of justice of the foreign country, instead of setting him free on the frontier?—That would entirely meet it. 16 June Nestor Treitt33 [The witness explained, inter alia, that attempts against the sovereign's life 33

A French barrister, acting as legal adviser to the English embassy at Paris.

Extradition

567

should be considered under the heading of assassinations, and so not seen as political crimes.] 1302. As assassination is never regarded as a political crime, it is of great importance to know what is the definition of assassination according to the French law; because all homicide, even of the first order of criminality, is not necessarily an assassination in France. We do not make that distinction in our English law?—/ will show you the distinction which exists in the text of the law. An assassination is an act of homicide committed with premeditation; a murder is the crime of homicide committed without premeditation, so that an assassination is distinguished from other kinds of homicide. There are two sorts of homicide; that which is committed with premeditation, which is called assassination, and that which is not committed with premeditation, which is called murder simply. 1303. Then, all murders committed with premeditation, even with political motives, would be cases of extradition, would they not?—They would be cases of extradition. In 18661 wrote a report, which must have been sent about that time to the Foreign Office, in which I developed the difference which you allude to, and said that in cases of extradition under a treaty it was necessary to take into account the motive which inspired the premeditation. I can cite an example to illustrate that. [Treitt was not sure whether his report had yet been published in England. ] 1306. Is the consideration which you think ought to be given to the question as to the motive which has inspired the assassination, recognised by the French law?— [It is not, and consequently assassinations inspired by ideas of vengeance, rape, or any other passion, are confused with political assassinations.] [The interrogation dwelt on definitions of French legal terms.] 1312. Suppose now, that murder had been committed on the person of a Frenchman, who was either a political functionary, or even the sovereign, in an attempt at insurrection; and that this murder had been premeditated in this sense, that the insurrection was premeditated, though it could not be foreseen that the death of this person would have resulted from it, but only that deaths would result from the attempt; would that case be regarded in France as an assassination?—The question which you put to me is not new in this sense, that an attempt against the life of a public functionary, or other person, on the part of a subject, from a motive of vengeance, has been considered as a crime de droit commun. Thus, supposing an insurgent has a personal hatred against a public functionary or anybody, and takes advantage of an insurrection to attempt his life, that has been considered as a crime de droit commun. But when there has been simply a meurtre as a consequence of the insurrection, that has not been considered then as a crime de droit commun, but as apolitical crime, as being part of the insurrection. In one

568

Appendix B

word, a crime committed on a person during an insurrection does not become a crime de droit commun, unless it has been inspired by private vengeance on the part of him who has committed the crime. [Treitt indicated the distinction between a sovereign's being killed indiscriminately among a group, in which case the crime would be political, and his being killed intentionally, in which case it would not, even though the act occurred in an insurrection.] 1317. We understand that; but you are aware that in war, and particularly since the introduction of the new weapons, it is common to aim at an officer, knowing him by his uniform; that is not done from vengeance, or from ill-will against the individual in particular, but as an act of war?—You will observe that in the case you cite, it is not the individual who is shot at, but the person clothed with the dignity of an officer. If it is a general, one shoots at the general; but one does not shoot at the particular man who is the general. 1318. Could not it be said in the same way that Tibaldi shot at the sovereign, and not at the individual?34—But you will observe that that was a direct attempt against the person; he knew the person at whom he shot; Tibaldi knew the individual he wished to kill, and I would make a distinction between a criminal who did not know the person he would kill and attempted his life only as holding a certain position, and a criminal who knew the person he attempted to kill. That would be the distinction one might make before a jury. 1319. Then in that case one could not, even in time of war, shoot at a person whom one knew, knowing at whom one shot, without being guilty of assassination as a crime de droit communl—You know the manner in which Lord Nelson died. It is said that the French vessel had on board an excellent shot (I forget his name at the moment). He asked the captain of the vessel, "Shall I shoot him? " because he saw Nelson on the deck of the Victory. The captain of the French vessel did not give the order to shoot Nelson. He said, "Do your duty as a soldier." The man did so, and shot Nelson. You see that the distinction exists. [The questioning turned to the status of the French circular on extradition.} 1399. This circular was issued by the then Minister of Justice, M. Martin du Nord?35—Yes, under the Government of Louis Philippe. The circular is very liberal. [Treitt affirmed that there was now no objection in France to the British law on extradition.} 34

Tibaldi was an Italian worker resident in Paris, tried and convicted for an attempt to assassinate Napoleon in in August 1857. 35 Nicolas Martin du Nord (1790-1847), Minister of Justice 1840-47.

Extradition

569

1403. In the French procedure is the accuse necessarily confronted with the witnesses before the final trial?—He is generally confronted with the witnesses upon the instruction, and at the trial he is always confronted with the witnesses. 1404. In his defence has he a right to ask questions of the witnesses?—His defender and he have the right to cause questions to be addressed to the witnesses; but they must be addressed through the intervention of the president. 1405. Then, it would depend upon the discretion of the president to put those questions; he can refuse to put them?—He can refuse to put them, but then, if he refuses, the avocats defending the accused draw their conclusions, and the question may be brought before the Cour de Cassation, whether the president was not wrong in refusing to put a question; for example, if it was a question which was necessary for the defence, and the president has refused to put it, the Cour de Cassation may quash the arret, on the ground that a necessary question has not been put. 1406. Would that be the case; for example, when questions are proposed to be put for the defence, with the object of diminishing the value of the evidence against the accused by bringing out contradictions in the evidence?—It is at the discretion of the president to put such questions, or to refuse to put them. 1407. Does the president generally permit questions of that kind to be put?—Yes, generally; but I will beg you to observe that in the discussion on the plaidoyer in defence, the avocat has the right to show contradictions. 1408. But the avocat cannot show the contradictions unless he can put questions to the witnesses on the trial with reference to the evidence they have given previously?—The witnesses whose depositions have been taken in writing on the instruction are called again at the trial, and then they make their depositions viva voce, and if there is a discrepancy between their depositions given then and those given before the avocat, the accuse has a right to call attention to it, and to ask the president to put a question as to why there is a difference between the written evidence and the verbal evidence. 1409. Then, he could ask the witness for an explanation of the contradiction between his evidence given at the trial and that which he had given previously?— Perfectly. 1410. But those questions, passing through the president, are necessarily in the language of the president; the question is put in the manner in which the president expresses it?—Yes, that happens sometimes, and it is often the cause of warm discussions between the defence and the court. 1411. That is to say, the defence can complain against the president with regard to the manner in which he puts the question?—Perfectly; the defence can do that; there is entire freedom on this subject. One can boldly cause all questions to be put, only the president of the Cour d'Assises, when the question contains an insinuation against the character or honour of the witness, hesitates to reproduce it.

570

Appendix B

[The question was discussed of whether Ledru Rollin,36 who was condemned par contumace over the Tibaldi affair, would have been extradited from England had the proposed treaty been agreed. ] 1414. Then if the French Government had demanded the extradition of M. Ledru Rollin before his condemnation par contumace, as being an accuse only, you think that the English Government could not have refused that extradition without violating the treaty?—They could not have refused it without violating the treaty in the French sense, but that would not have been the case in the English sense, because, according to the mode of interpreting the treaty in England, it was necessary that the English judge should have a certainty of the guilt of the person accused; he does not content himself with the proof of the guiltfurnished to him, he wishes more considerable evidence. 1415. He wishes more considerable evidence, but he does not require to be convinced of the guilt of the person accused; he only requires to have such proof as would justify the committal of the person for trial if he was an English subject, and subject to the jurisdiction of the English tribunals?—My answer to your question is, that if the French Government had demanded M. Ledru Rollin as an accuse before he was condemned par contumace, for complicity in the attempt of Tibaldi, according to the spirit of the treaty, and according to the interpretation given to the treaty in France, England ought to have delivered him up, I think; the extradition of another refugie, M. Bernard, was equally demanded at that time, but M. Bernard was not delivered up; proceedings were taken against him in England, and he was acquitted. [French law allows trial for complicity in a crime committed in France of persons not resident in France at that time; it would apply for their extradition. This procedure would have covered Ledru Rollin's case. ] 1423. Does not the French law recognise something which is called moral complicity?—[Yes, but it has been applied in only one case, that of a journalist who was accused of inciting by his articles an attempt on the life of the due D'Aumale. The term has never been accepted.] 1424. What was the name of that writer who was then accused?—His name is Dupoty.37 1425. It was not M. Armand Carrel?—No. 1426. Do you remember that M. Armand Carrel was subjected to a proces 36

Alexandra Auguste Ledru Rollin (1807-74), French politician prominent in the 1848 revolution, had fled to England in 1849 after taking part in a demonstration against Louis Napoleon. ^Michel Auguste Dupoty (1797-1864), liberal editor of the Journal du Peuple, accused in 1841.

571

Extradition 38

criminel for complicity in the crime of Fieschi? —At that time, the phrase "moral complicity" was not invented. 1427. Are you sure of that?—/ am quite sure. 1428. M. Armand Carrel published a brochure at that time: it was in 1836, I think, under the title of Extract from the dossier of a person charged with moral complicity in the attentat of such a date?39—Your memory must be confusing between two cases. I have read the pamphlet to which you alluded. This is what occurred. After Fieschi's attempt, Armand Carrel was arrested and remained eight days in confinement. When he came out, he published the documents which had been seized at his house, and in his publication he said he had been interrogated by the judge on his moral participation in the attempt. But he never had to submit to a trial on that account. The words "moral complicity" only appeared in the brochure. 1429. And that expression has not been used on any other occasion?—No; moral complicity has not been admitted in French criminal law. I will hand in to the Committee a small brochure, which I have here, written by a young judge in France, in which he speaks of the good results of the visit of Sir Thomas Henry to Paris. Henry Thurstan Holland, resumed [Interrogation returned to practice in Malta.} 1445. In 1849, after the taking of Rome, if I remember right, a number of refugees from Rome were either deported from Malta or refused permission to land in Malta. I do not know which it was; but one or the other took place, I believe?—In 1848 there was a great arrival of Jesuits, who were compelled to leave Naples. 1446. But this is the very reverse; these were people flying from the Jesuits?—Yes; I was going to say that some of these were afterwards deported. All the cases in 1849 of which we know anything will be found in a Paper printed for the House of Commons on the 12th of March 1850.40

38 Jean Baptiste Nicolas Armand Carrel (1800-36), radical journalist and one of Mill's heroes, accused along with two members of the Societe des Droits de 1'Homme of complicity in an attempt on the life of Louis Philippe by Giuseppe Marco Fieschi (1790-1836) on 28 July, 1835. 39 Extrait du dossier d'un prevenu de complicite morale dans V attentat du 28 juillet (Paris: Paulin, 1835). Mill comments on this in CW, XX, 207-8. "^''Despatches between the Governor of Malta and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Relating to the Admission of Foreigners into the Island of Malta" (12 Mar., 1850), PP, 1850, XXXVI, 843-917. Mill mentions the matter in CW, XXV, 1142.

Appendix C Petitions in the House of Commons (1866-68) AFTER 1842, petitioning had little effect on the House of Commons, but Mill was continuing a strong Radical tradition in agreeing to present petitions, seeing himself like his earlier congeners as a representative of the unrepresented, especially of minorities. Though there can be no question about his whole-hearted support of the views of some of the petitions, it must not be assumed that he agreed with all of them; indeed he not infrequently presented petitions on both sides of an issue, and his opposition to that concerning Napier (5 June, 1868) is part of the record. This appendix is not therefore a record of his beliefs; it is, however, an index of his repute nationally as well as locally, and of his exceptionally busy and regular parliamentary activity. The reports are summarized from the Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Petitions [RPP], checked substantively whenever possible against those in The Times [TT], and (for 1867) against the St. Stephen's Chronicle. Indication is given when the petition is given in full in an Appendix to RPP, or summarized as part of the entry. In one case, when Mill presented in one day (5 May, 1868) over one hundred individual petitions in favour of Municipal Government for the Metropolis, the entries are (as in TT) conflated into one.

1866

19 February For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from merchants, manufacturers, and traders of the city of Westminster. (No. 229, 772 signatures; TT, 20 Feb., p. 6.) 22 February That adequate provision might be made for the religious worship and instruction of Catholic juvenile offenders in the Industrial School at Feltham, from members of the Roman Catholic Church in Farm Street, Berkeley Square. (No. 282, 257 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from members of Saint Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Horseferry Road. (No. 283, 733 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.) That provision be made for the spiritual instruction of Roman Catholic adults and children in workhouses and reformatories, from members of Saint Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Horseferry Road. (No. 287, 711 signatures; TT, 23 Feb., p. 6.)

Petitions

573

Idem, from members of the Roman Catholic Chapel in Farm Street, Berkeley Square. (No. 288, 260 signatures; 7T, 23 Feb., p. 6.) 27 February For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Minerva Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 408, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Freehold and Leasehold Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 409, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the London Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 410, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Mutual Reversionary Investment Society (Limited). (No. 411, 1 signature; IT, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Carlton Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 412, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Professional and Commercial Benefit Building Society. (No. 413, 1 signature; IT, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Athenaeum Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 414, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) Idem, from the Standard Benefit Building Society. (No. 415, 1 signature; 7T, 28 Feb., p. 6.) 12 March For extension of the suffrage to all adult males (excluding peers, those of unsound mind, and those convicted of crimes), and vote by ballot, from inhabitants of the City of London and the Metropolitan Districts, in a public meeting in St. Martin's Hall, Longacre, 12Dec., 1865. (No. 1461,1 signature [EdmondBeales],printed in App. 180, pp. 77-8; 7T, 13 Mar., p. 5.) For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from members of the Independent Building Society, No. 7. (No. 1738, 1 signature; 7T, 13 Mar., p. 5.) Idem, from members of the Land, Building, Investment, and Cottage Improvement Company (Limited). (No. 1739, 1 signature; 7T, 13 Mar., p. 5.) Idem, from members of the Independent Building Society, No. 6. (No. 1740, 1 signature; 7T, 13 Mar., p. 5.) 13 March For readjustment and redistribution of Irish Church property, from the parish of Scarriff and Moywe, County Clare. (No. 1708, 323 signatures, printed in App. 185, p. 79; IT, 14 Mar., p. 5.)

574

Appendix C

10 April Praying that those who have suffered from vaccination may be examined at the bar of the House before the Vaccination Bill is passed, from John Lofts and others. (No. 3430, 62 signatures; 7T, 11 Apr., p. 6.) 12 April In favour of the Representation of the People Bill, from working men of London in public meeting assembled in St. Martin's Hall. (No. 3776, 1 signature [George Potter];7T, 13 Apr., p. 5.) 17 April In favour of the Hop Trade Bill, from the brewers of Westminster. (No. 4935, 4 signatures; 7T, 18 Apr., p. 6.) 27 April In favour of the Representation of the People Bill, from the Vestry of the parish of St. James's, Westminster, under their common seal. (No. 5871, sealed, printed in App. 523, p. 211; 7T, 28 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from inhabitants of Westminster in public meeting to the number of 2500 assembled (the Members for the City being present) at St. James's Hall. (No. 5872, 1 signature [Charles Westerton], printed in App. 524, p. 211; 7T, 28 Apr., p. 6.)

7 May For reduction of public expenditure, from the gentry, merchants, professional gentlemen, and others in Westminster. (No. 7049, 828 signatures; 7T, 8 May, p. 8, identifies the topic as abolishing the duty on fire insurance and modifying the Income-tax, and says 834 signatures.) 14 May For a committee of inquiry into the attitude of the working classes towards the opening of the national museums, etc., on Sundays, with evidence from the trade societies and representatives of the large workshops, from a meeting of 1000, including delegates from Trade Societies, in St. Martin's Hall, Dec. 1865. (No. 7357, 1 signature, printed in App. 627, p. 250; IT, 15 May, p. 8.) Praying that in the Bill for the completion of the approaches to the Thames Embankment, the site of Northumberland-house may be treated on the same principles of justice and equity as any other property, from the vestry of St. James's, Westminster. (No. 7785, sealed; 7T, 15 May, p. 8.)

17 May Praying that two representatives in Parliament may be granted to the Scottish

Petitions

575

Universities, from the Principals and Professors of the University of St. Andrews, signed by the Vice-Chancellor, Principal John Tulloch. (No. 7340, 1 signature, the petition not assigned to Mill in RPP;1 TT, 18 May, p. 6.) In favour of spiritual instruction for Roman Catholic pauper children, from wives and mothers belonging to the Roman Catholic congregation of St. Mary's Horseferry Road. (No. 7475, 231 signatures; TT, 18 May, p. 6.) Praying for an inquiry into his suggestions respecting sewage, the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament, the magnetic and meteorological survey, and other subjects, and into the circumstances under which he was removed from an appointment under the Board of Ordnance, from Franklin Cox worthy. (Not in RPP;TT, 18 May, p. 6.) 29 May Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the eastern and other divisions of the metropolis. (No. 8099, 358 signatures; TT, 30 May, p. 6.)

I June Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the parishes of Stepney, Bow, Hackney, etc. (No. 8325, 224 signatures; TT, 2 June, p. 6.) 7 June For extension of the electoral franchise to all householders, without distinction of sex, who possess such property or rental qualification as may be appointed for male voters, from Barbara L.S. Bodichon and others. (No. 8501, 1521 signatures,2 printed in App. 747, p. 305; TT, 8 June, p. 5.) 8 June Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from members of the East Central (London) Temperance Association. (No. 8705, 58 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6.) II June Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of 1

A note says that the petition would have been given in full had "the Member presenting the same" complied with the Order of 20 Mar., 1833, that every member presenting a petition "affix his name at the beginning thereof" (p. 570). 2 7T gives the number as 1515, and says, "Mill stated that the whole of the signatures to it had been obtained during a period of little more than a fortnight." The Committee notes that they "have reported the number of names appended to this Petition, but they observe that, with the exception of seven, they are all written on Slips of Paper and pasted on the Petition" (p. 697).

576

Appendix C

Victoria Park, from inhabitants and frequenters of Victoria Park. (No. 8706, 566 signatures; 7T, 9 June, p. 6, implies only one petition submitted.) Idem, from inhabitants and frequenters of Victoria Park. (No. 8707, 396 signatures; 7T, 9 June, p. 6, implies only one petition on this subject submitted.) Praying for a general, in lieu of a county, area of rating for compensation for losses by cattle plague, from inhabitants of the township of Hyde, Cheshire. (No. 8813, 105 signatures; 7T, 12 June, p. 7.) Praying for an investigation of the petitioners' right and interest in 21 acres of land, of which they state that they have been unjustly deprived, from Joseph Gibbins and others, chiefly farm labourers, of Shawell, Leicestershire. (No. 8846, 8 signatures; 7T, 12 June, p. 7.) 5 July For a committee of inquiry into the currency laws, with a view to protect the working classes and their families from the injury done them by a high rate of discount, from working-men of the city of Cambridge. (No. 9447, 45 signatures; 7T, 6 July, p. 6.) Against the Bills authorizing the construction of gasworks in the neighbourhood of Victoria Park, from inhabitants of the East and North of London. (No. 9449, 100 signatures; 7T, 6 July, p. 6.) 6 July Praying for justice generally, and specially that the memory of her late husband, who had illegally suffered the death of a traitor and a felon, might be vindicated, and his sentence and execution be declared to have been illegal, from Mrs. Maria Jane Gordon, late of Kingston, Jamaica, and now of 40 Avenue Road, Regent's Park, widow of George William Gordon, who was recently executed in Jamaica. (No. 9451, 1 signature, printed in App. 829, p. 341; 7T, 7 July, p. 6.) 20 July Praying that in case of any mediated intervention by France in the affairs of Italy the House will take measures to discountenance such intervention, from Mr. W. J. Linton, of Brantwood, Coniston, Lancashire. (No. 9569,1 signature; 7T, 21 July, p. 5.) 23 July For the postponement of the Artisans and Labourers' Dwellings Bill to another Session, from the Board of Works for the Strand District. (No. 9526, sealed; 7T, 24 July, p. 6.)

Petitions

577

2 August Praying for inquiry into the conduct of Sir Richard Mayne and the police under his command, in regard to preventing a meeting from being held in Hyde Park, on the 23rd of July last, from inhabitants of the Metropolitan District, in public meeting assembled at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, on 30 July, 1866. (No. 9670, 1 signature [Edmond Beales], printed in App. 875, p. 376; 7T, 3 Aug., p. 4 [saying 25th rather than 23rd July].) 10 August Praying that the House will take steps for preventing the annexation of Mysore, and for maintaining that tributary State with every possible security for British interests and for the prosperity of the people of the country, from General John Briggs, the First Commissioner of Mysore; General J.S. Fraser, late resident at Hyderabad and at Mysore; Sir John Low, late member of the Supreme Council of India; Colonel Haines, late Judicial Commissioner at Mysore; General Jacob, late Commissioner of the Southern Mahratta Country; Sir Robert Hamilton, late agent to the Viceroy in Central India; and 50 others. (No. 9640,56 signatures, printed in App. 869, pp. 36871; 7T, 11 Aug., p. 6.)

1867 12 February For Committee of Inquiry into allegations made with reference to the appointment of Sir Fitzroy Kelly to be Chief Baron of the Exchequer, from Rigby Wason of Corwar, Ayr. (No. 330, 1 signature; 7T, 13 Feb., p. 6.) 15 February Against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from the minister and members of Trinity Independent Church, Dewsbury, Yorkshire. (No. 123, 198 signatures; 7T, 16 Feb., p. 6.) 28 February For residential and registered manhood suffrage and vote by ballot, from Henry Beal, of 9, Charles Street, Portman Square. (No. 984, 1 signature; 7T, 1 Mar., p. 4.) 1 March Praying that legislative provision be made for the removal to certified Roman Catholic schools of all Roman Catholic children in workhouses, from the Roman Catholics of the congregation of Farm Street Church, Berkeley Square. (No. 1034, 301 signatures, printed in App. 89, pp. 38-9; 7T, 2 Mar., p. 6.)

578

Appendix C

4 March For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Westminster Permanent Building Society. (No. 1254, 1 signature; 7T, 5 Mar., p. 7.) Idem, from the Second Warwick Building Society, held at the Saint Leonard's Institution, Pimlico. (No. 1255, 1 signature; 7T, 5 Mar., p. 7.) Idem, from the Second Warwick Benefit Building Society, held at the Saint Leonard's Institution, Pimlico. (No. 1256, 1 signature; 7T, 5 Mar., p. 7.) Idem, from the First Pimlico Building Society, held at 37 Warwick Street, Pimlico. (No. 1257, 4 signatures; 7T, 5 Mar., p. 7.) 5 March Stating that the petitioner was the first proposer of schools of design and industrial exhibitions; that with much labour and considerable cost he drew up a plan, for which he was promised pecuniary remuneration by a committee of the House of Commons; that a sum of money for this purpose was voted by the House, but never received by him in consequence of his not knowing when or to whom to apply for it, and praying that the intended remuneration may be given to him, from Robert Thomas Stothard. (Not in RPP; IT, 6 Mar., p. 6.) 8 March For repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from the Seventh Pimlico Building Society, 37 Sloane Square. (No. 1284, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Athenaeum Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1285, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Freehold and Leasehold Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 20 Great Marlborough Street, Regent Street. (No. 1286, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Professional and Commercial Benefit Building Society, held at 20 Great Marlborough Street, Regent Street. (No. 1287, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Carlton Permanent Benefit Building Society, held at 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1288, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Mutual Reversionary Investment Society (Limited), 30 Regent Street, Piccadilly. (No. 1289, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Land, Building, Investment, and Cottage Improvement Company (Limited), 18 Adam Street, Adelphi. (No. 1290, 1 signature; 7T, 9 Mar., p. 6.)

Petitions

579

12 March In favour of opening the British Museum and similar institutions thrice a week, from 7 to 10 p.m., from inhabitants of St. Saviour's, Chelsea, at a meeting held on 6 March at the National School Rooms. (No. 1523, 1 signature; TT, 13 Mar., p. 6.) Praying that the penalties for deficient weights and measures may be confined to cases of fraud, from the tradesmen of Dean Street, Old Compton Street, and other parts of Soho. (No. 1559, 126 signatures; TT, 13 Mar., p. 6.) 14 March For the restriction of Sunday trading, from the tradesmen of Bloomsbury, etc. (No. 1638, 126 signatures; TT, 15 Mar., p. 4.) For a measure re-establishing the exemption from rates of hospitals and other like charities, from the House Committee of the Westminster Hospital. (No. 1659, 1 signature, the petition not assigned to Mill in RPP;3 TT, 15 Mar., p. 4.) 15 March Praying that women be admitted to the electoral franchise on whatever qualifications—of property, rent, taxation, or education—which the House may adopt in the case of men, from Mrs. Elizabeth Wilmshurst French, of Staplehurst, Kent. (No. 1562, 1 signature; TT, 16 Mar., p. 6.) 18 March In favour of the Bill for the abolition of Tests in the University of Oxford, from the members of the Senatus Academicus of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 1779, 9 signatures, printed in App. 179, p. 84; TT, 19 Mar., p. 5.) 19 March In favour of the repeal or reduction of duty on fire insurance, from the Thirteenth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1825, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Eleventh Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1826, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Fifth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 1827, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) 3

Again a note that the petition would have been given in full had "the Member presenting the same" complied with the Order of 20 Mar., 1833, that every member presenting a petition "affix his name at the beginning thereof" (p. 134).

580

Appendix C

Idem, from the Sixty-fourth Starr Bowkett Benefit Building Society, held at the school room, Grafton Street Chapel, Grafton Street, Fitzroy Square. (No. 1828,1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Twelfth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, held at 120 Long Acre (No. 1829, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Metropolitan and Suburban Benefit Building Society, 387 Oxford Street West. (No. 1830, 1 signature; IT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the No. 1 Ancient Order of Foresters Building Society, Star and Garter, Poland Street, Oxford Street. (No. 1831, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Warwick Mutual Benefit Building Society, held at the Queen's Arms, Warwick Street, Pimlico. (No. 1832, 1 signature; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the vestry of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields. (No. 1875, sealed; TT, 20 Mar., p. 6.) 20 March For a searching investigation into the present mode of inspecting weights and measures, from the tradesmen of Westminster and Pimlico. (No. 2052, 151 signatures; TT, 21 Mar., p. 6.) 21 March Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the Board of Works, Westminster District. (No. 2008, sealed; TT, 22 Mar., p. 5.) 22 March For the complete enfranchisement of the working classes, from George Jacob Holyoake. (No. 1889, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 165; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.) In favour of amending the Printworks Act by reducing the hours of labour for women and children, from the workpeople employed at Belfield Printworks, Rochdale, Lancaster. (No. 2034, 200 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the workpeople employed at Hollingworth Mill Printworks, Hollingworth, Chester. (No. 2035, 71 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the workpeople employed at Dinting Vale Printworks, Glossop, Derby. (No. 2036, 510 signatures; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the workpeople employed at Reddich Vale, Lancaster. (Not in RPP; TT, 23 Mar., p. 6.)

Petitions

581

25 March That the national museums, picture galleries, botanical gardens, and similar collections be open to the public on Sunday afternoons, from the employes of Messrs. Arnold, Jermyn Street, St. James's and others. (No. 2081, 30 signatures; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.) Idem, from the employes of Messrs. P. and W. Wilson, tinplate workers, Wardour Street, Soho. (No. 2082, 71 signatures, printed in App. 236, p. 107; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.) Idem, from the employes of the London Journal Office. (No. 2083, 32 signatures; TT, 26 Mar., p. 3.) 26 March Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from a public meeting at Exeter Hall. (No. 2305, 177 signatures; TT, 27 Mar., p. 5.) Idem, from a public meeting at the Store Street Rooms, Tottenham Court Road. (No. 2306, 155 signatures; TT, 27 Mar., p. 5.) 1 April Against the Metropolitan Gas Bill, from Lawrence Lord Barnes. (No. 2677, 1 signature; TT, 2 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from William John Blew. (No. 2678, 1 signature; TT, 2 Apr., p. 6.) 2 April For alteration in the Representation of the People Bill to get rid of certain qualifications for the franchise, to admit women to the franchise, to alter the redistribution scheme, and to control bribery at elections, from Richard Sleman, an elector of Tavistock. (No. 2488, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 228; not inTT.) 4 For inquiry and redress concerning the petitioner's claim concerning remuneration from the Committee on Arts and Manufactures, etc., from Robert Thomas Stothard. (No. 3038, 1 signature, summary with entry, p. 255; not in TT.) 4 April For the opening of the national museums, etc., on Sunday afternoons, from 4

7T, 3 Apr., p. 6, gives another petition, perhaps a confused version of this: "Praying that an Act may be passed disqualifying every person concerned in corrupt practices at elections, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another, from holding any public office or exercising any political privilege, from Lancaster."

582

Appendix C

working men of various trades in the metropolis. (No. 3061, 264 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from the employes of the Savile House Printing Establishment, Beaufort Buildings. (No. 3062, 34 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.) Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, from Robert Cradock Nichols. (No. 3743, 1 signature; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from John James Mullins. (No. 3744, 1 signature; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.) Complaining of the present system of selling and hawking goods on Sunday, and praying for a law to confine trading on that day to articles of necessity, from tradesmen of Westminster and Pimlico. (No. 3145, 187 signatures; TT, 5 Apr., p. 6.) 5 April Praying that the suffrage be granted to women on the same conditions of property, rating, rental, or otherwise, on which it may be granted to men, from Emma Winkworth, Lydia E. Becker, Jacob Bright, and others of Manchester. (No. 3094, 3086 signatures,5 printed in App. 320, p. 141; TT, 6 Apr., p. 5.) 8 April For extension of the elective franchise and vote by ballot, from the Executive Committee of the Reform League. (No. 4366, 3 signatures [Edmond Beales, William Dell, George Howell], printed in App. 343, p. 151; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.) Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, from Benjamin Rawlings, Brompton. (No. 4551, 1 signature; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from Sarah Gunthorpe, Brompton. (No. 4552, 1 signature; TT, 9 Apr., p. 6.) 9 April In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 5403, 1 signature; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Clement Danes. (No. 5404,18 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square. (No. 5405, 34 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Saviour's, Southwark. (No. 5406, 19 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) 5

7T gives the number as 3161.

Petitions

583

Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Ann, Fulham. (No. 5407, 29 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint James, Westminster. (No. 5408, 29 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from consumers of gas in Kennington, Lambeth. (No. 5409, 36 signatures; TT, 10 Apr., p. 6.) 11 April For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Clarissa Handforth, 4 Grove Street, Ardwick, and others. (No. 5442,875 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from Elizabeth Hulme, 97 Collyhurst St., and others. (No. 5443, 230 signatures;6 TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Mary le Strand. (No. 5728, 34 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Paul, Covent Garden. (No. 5729, 24 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 5730, 25 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parish of Saint Margaret, Westminster. (No. 5731, 19 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the Vauxhall Bridge Road. (No. 5732, 29 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in Pimlico. (No. 5733, 30 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in Millbank. (No. 5734, 22 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the District of Knightsbridge. (No. 5735, 27 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) Idem, from consumers of gas in the parishes of Saint Margaret and Saint John the Evangelist. (No. 5736, 27 signatures; TT, 12 Apr., p. 5.) 29 April In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from 1,812 consumers of gas in Westminster. (No. 6141, 1867 signatures;7 TT, 30 Apr., p. 6.) 6

7T gives the number as 246, and says the petition was from Manchester. 7Tgives the number as 1812, and says "also from a public meeting in Westminster."

7

584

Appendix C

30 April Against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the City of Westminster. (No. 6194, 221 signatures; 7T, 1 May, p. 6.) Idem, from St. James and St. George, Westminster. (No. 6195, 140 signatures; 7T, 1 May, p. 6.)

2 May In favour of the Metropolis Gas Bill, from the Board of Works for the Lewisham District. (No. 6942, sealed; 7T, 3 May, p. 6.)8 Idem, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 6943, sealed; 7T, 3 May, p. 6.) Idem, from the gas consumers of Brighton. (No. 6944, 7 signatures; 7T, 3 May, p. 6.) Idem, from the gas consumers of Bolton, Lancaster. (No. 6945,89 signatures; 7T, 3 May, p. 6.)

6 May Deprecating interference on the part of Government with the intended public meeting in Hyde Park, from the Council of the Reform League at Aberdeen. (No. 8271, 1 signature; 7T, 7 May, p. 6.) Idem, from the Council of the Reform League at Parkhead. (No. 8272, 38 signatures; 7T, 7 May, p. 6.)

9 May For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sundays, from tradesmen of St. James's, Westminster. (No. 8663, 181 signatures; 7T, 10 May, p. 6.) 13 May For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sunday, from tradesmen and others of Fetter Lane and neighbourhood. (No. 9108, 105 signatures; 7T, 14 May, p. 7.)9 Idem, from tradesmen and others of Henrietta Street, Chandos Street, Bedford Street, and places adjacent Covent Garden. (No. 9109, 229 signatures; 7T, 14 May, p. 7.) 8 7T gives this and the following three petitions as against the Bill, adds Cambridge and Sheffield, and says the Westminster Board of Works petitioned for a Select Committee on the Bill. 9 RPP does not assign this and the following two petitions to any Member.

Petitions

585

Idem, from tradesmen and others of Carey Street, Chancery Lane, and neighbourhood. (No. 9110, 201 signatures; 7T, 14 May, p. 7.) 14 May To be heard against the National Gallery Enlargement Bill, by the Select Committee, from the vicar and churchwardens of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 9210, 4 signatures, summarized in the entry; 7T, 15 May, p. 6.)10

Idem, from the vicar, churchwardens, and others of the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields. (No. 9211, 6 signatures; 7T, 15 May, p. 6.) 20 May

For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Sarah Steinthall and others of Manchester. (No. 9669, 1750 signatures;11 TT, 21 May, p. 7.) Idem, from Sarah Patchell and others of Manchester. (No. 9670, 108 signatures;12 7T, 21 May, p. 7.) For altering the time for closing the gates of the gardens of Chelsea Hospital, from inhabitants of the neighbourhood. (No. 9718, 35 signatures; TT, 21 May, p. 7.) Against the Traffic Regulation (Metropolis) Bill, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 9743, sealed, printed in App. 617, p. 262;7T,21 May, p. 7.) 23 May

In favour of opening the British Museum and other national institutions on Sunday afternoons, from the employes of Charles Aldin, builder, South Kensington. (No. 9781, 65 signatures; TT, 24 May, p. 6.) 27 May Against the Metropolis Gas Bill, as amended, from the Board of Works for the Westminster District. (No. 10,098, sealed, summarized in entry; TT, 28 May, p. 8.)

"Mr. Mill hoped that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, which was one of pressing exigency, the House would permit him to say he had just received a telegram from Dublin stating that a petition from Fellows and other gentlemen connected with Trinity College for the remission of the capital sentence on the 10 7Tevidently conflates this and the next petition, saying the petitioners were the trustees and governors of Archbishop Tenison's School and those of the parochial school of the parish. 11 TT gives the number as 2348. 12 7T gives the number as 104.

586

Appendix C

convict Burke had this day been very numerously signed." (Not in RPP for subsequent dates; TT, 28 May, p. 8.) 5 June Praying that an opportunity be afforded the petitioner of proving experimentally the efficacy of his treatment of the cattle plague, from Professor Antonio Bini of the Licensed Chymical Laboratory, Leicester Square. (Not in RPP; TT, 6 June, p. 8.) 6 June In favour of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill and against the Metropolitan Improvements Bill, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Regent Street, Oxford Street, and neighbourhood. (No. 10,892, 195 signatures; TT, 1 June, p. 6.) Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Piccadilly, Jermyn Street, and neighbourhood. (No. 10,893, 47 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.) Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of the City of Westminster. (No. 10,894, 115 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.) Idem, from the inhabitants and ratepayers of Saint Margaret and Saint John, Westminster. (No. 10,895, 59 signatures; TT, 7 June, p. 6.) 13 June Against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from the inhabitants of Oakhill, near Bath. (No. 10,720, 57 signatures; TT, 14 June, p. 6.) 17 June For the opening of the British Museum and other national museums etc., on Sunday afternoons, from working men resident in London. (No. 11,181, 203 signatures; TT, 18 June, p. 8.) Praying to be heard before the Select Committee on the Hours of Regulation Bill, from Messrs. Woodfall and Kinder. (Not in RPP; TT, 18 June, p. 8.) 18 June Representing the petitioner's great services as the originator of the railway system and of other important inventions, and his distressed circumstances, and praying for inquiry and some recognition of his services, from William Henry James, civil engineer. (No. 11,367, 1 signature, summarized in entry; TT, 19 June, p. 6.)13 13

RPP does not assign this petition to any Member.

Petitions

587

20 June In favour of alterations in the Factory Acts Extension Bill and Hours of Labour Regulation Bill, from Messrs. Savill and Edwards, printers. (No. 11,361, 1 signature; TT, 14 June, p. 6.)14 Stating that the petitioner's treatment of cholera in Limehouse and Spitalfields during the late epidemic has been eminently successful, and praying for inquiry into its character and merits, from James B arnett. (Not in RPP; 7T, 21 June, p. 6.) 28 June Praying for inquiry into the excessive mortality from consumption and its connexion with rebreathed air, and for legislation directed to the removal of its causes, from Dr. MacCormac, consulting physician to the Belfast Hospital. (Not in RPP; TT, 29 June, p. 8.) 5 July Praying for justice to Prince Azee Jah Bahadoor, of the Carnatic, from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Keighley. (No. 11,977, 3 signatures, printed in App. 882, p. 372; 7T, 6 July, p. 7.) 8 July For the opening of the British Museum and other national institutions on Sunday afternoons, from working men, residing in the metropolis. (No. 11,893, 156 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 9 July, p. 6.) 10 July Against the Sunday Trading Bill, from tradesmen and residents of Lambeth. (No. 12,110, 279 signatures; TT, 11 July, p. 6.) 19 July For inquiry into the possibility of giving better accommodation to the public in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital, from the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. (No. 12,278, 9 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 20 July, p. 6.) 5 August For an address praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Birmingham Foreign Affairs Committee and from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Ladywood, Birmingham. (No. 12,667, 4 signatures; TT, 6 Aug., p. 6.) 14 Given its appearance in TT of 14 June, the petition must have been presented on the 13th, but the date of 20 June in RPP conforms to the official numbering.

588

Appendix C

7 August Praying that a Bill be passed to allow affirmations or declarations to be taken instead of oaths in judicial proceedings, from inhabitants of the metropolis. (Not in RPP\TT, 8 Aug., p. 6.) 12 August For an address praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association at Macclesfield. (No. 12,670, 2 signatures; IT, 13 Aug., p. 3.) 1868

21 February Praying that at least two representatives may be given to the Scottish Universities, from the General Council of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 1131, 1 signature, printed in App. 53, p. 26; 7T, 22 Feb., p. 6.) In favour of the Bill for Restricting the Sale of Liquors on Sunday, from the Pimlico A. A. Band of Hope, Vauxhall Bridge Road. (No. 1447, 1 signature; 7T, 22 Feb., p. 6.) 5 March In favour of the B ill for prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, from Thomas Edwardes and others. (No. 1926, 90 signatures; 7T, 6 Mar., p. 4.) Praying for the appointment of a Minister of Public Instruction, for introducing Art instruction into national education, and other educational improvements, from Robert Thomas Stothard. (No. 2336, 1 signature, summarized in entry; 7T, 6 Mar., p. 4.) 10 March For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from various benefit building societies. (No relevant petitions are assigned to Mill in RPP, but unassigned Nos. 2747-57 are from various societies in Westminster; 7T, 11 Mar., p. 5.) 13 March For the reduction or abolition of the duty on fire insurance, from the Globe Permanent Benefit Building Society. (No. 3521,6 signatures, not assigned to any Member in RPP; TT, 14 Mar., p. 6.) 16 March Against the Bill for restricting the sale of liquors on Sunday, from Westminster and

Petitions

589

other places. (No. 4046, 530 signatures, not assigned to any Member inRPP; TT, 17 Mar., p. 5.) 26 March For the reduction or abolition of the duty on fire insurance, from the Eighth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 120 Long Acre. (No. 6487, 5 signatures; TT, 21 Mar., p. 6.) Idem, from the Effra Mutual Benefit Building Society, 50 Carey Street, Lincoln's Inn. (No. 6488, 1 signature; TT, 27 Mar., p. 6.) For an address to Her Majesty, praying the Queen to acquaint Foreign Powers that the Declaration of Paris, having been made without her authority or consent, is not binding on this country, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association of Macclesfield. (No. 6506, 2 signatures, printed in App. 275, p. 123; TT, 27 Mar., p. 6.) 30 March Praying that in the Reform Bill for Scotland two representatives, at least, should be assigned to the Scottish Universities, from the Principals and Professors of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 6580, 1 signature; TT, 31 Mar., p. 5.) Praying that in the Reform Bill for Scotland the clause or clauses which would incorporate in the General Council any graduates who have not resided and studied at the University may be omitted, from the General Council of the University of St. Andrews. (No. 6581, 1 signature, printed in App. 285, pp. 128-9; TT, 31 Mar., p. 5.) 3 April Against the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and praying that if the resolutions be carried, the House will immediately dissolve the Union and withdraw the grant to Maynooth, from Hoxton, Westminster, and other places. (No. 9100, 41 signatures; TT, 4 Apr., p. 6.) Against the disestablishment or disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland, from Westminster. (No. 9101, 180 signatures; TT, 4 Apr., p. 6.) 23 April For an improved municipal government of the metropolis, from F.D. Lambert, 20 Devonshire Place. (No. 10,977, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from Major-General Lord Frederick Paulet, Albany. (No. 10,978, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from Comyn, Ching, and Co., 28 and 29 Castle Street, Long Acre. (No. 10,979, 1 signature; TT, 24 Apr., p. 6.)

590

Appendix C

Idem, from William Hargreaves, 12 Chepstow Villas, Bayswater. (No. 10,980, 1 signature; 7T, 24 Apr., p. 6.) 24 April For the repeal or reduction of the duty on fire insurance, from bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and traders of the City of Westminster. (No. 10,694, 571 signatures; 7T, 25 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from the Fourth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 10,695, 2 signatures; 7T, 25 Apr., p. 6.) Idem, from the Thirteenth Saint Martin's Mutual Benefit Building Society, 119 Long Acre. (No. 10,696, 3 signatures; 7T, 25 Apr., p. 6.)

4 May For restriction of selling and hawking goods on Sundays, from Westminster, Pimlico, Chelsea, and parts adjacent. (No. 14,830, 303 signatures; IT, 6 May, p. 5.) 5 May Against Mr. Ayrton's amendments to the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Bill, from Bassishaw, City of London. (No. 14,889, 44 signatures; 7T, 6 May, p. 8.) In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from a large number of individual petitioners. (Nos. 14,934-15,095 and 15,891, each signed; 7T, 6 May, p. 8.) 11 May In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from F.E. Walpole, 3 Queen's Street, Mayfair. (No. 15,894, 1 signature; 7T, 12 May, p. 6.)

Idem, from Ernest F. Webb, 4 Westbourne Villas, Harrow Road. (No. 15,895, 1 signature; 7T, 12 May, p. 6.) Idem, from Henry Burchett, 9 Saint Stephen's Square. (No. 15,896, 1 signature; notinTT.) Idem, from Arthur Provey, 34 Somerset Street. (No. 15,897, 1 signature; not in 7T.) 12 May Praying for an alteration in the vagrant laws, whereby householders and ratepayers may no longer be punishable as vagrants because they practise astrology, from Christopher Cooke, Ryde, Isle of Wight. (No. 15,908, 1 signature; 7T, 13 May, p. 6.)

Petitions

591

13 May In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from John Watkins, 34 Parliament Street. (No. 16,068, 1 signature; 7T, 14 May, p. 8.)

Idem, from J. Hardwicke, M.D., Deputy-Coroner. (No. 16,069, 1 signature; 7T, 14 May, p. 8.) 14 May For extension of the electoral franchise to women, from Mary Somerville and others. (No. 15,933, 21,783 signatures;15 7T, 15 May, p. 6.)

In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Henry Latham, 15 Upper Westbourne Terrace. (No. 16,071, 1 signature; 7T, 15 May, p. 6.) Idem, from William Aston Blount, 1 Eaton Place West, Belgrave Square. (No. 16,072, 1 signature; 7T, 15 May, p. 6.) 18 May In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Francis Edward Reade, 7 Saint James Street. (No. 16,233, 1 signature; 7T, 19 May, p. 6.)

Idem, from William Stevenson. (No. 16,234, 1 signature; 7T, 19 May, p. 6.) 21 May In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Reginald E. Thompson, M.D., 21 South Street, Park Lane. (No. 16,376, 1 signature; 7T, 22 May, p. 4.) 22 May Against the chartering and endowing of a denominational University in Ireland, and in favour of opening Trinity College, from the Presbytery of Coleraine. (No. 16,353, 19 signatures; 7T, 23 May, p. 5.)

25 May Complaining that proceedings have been taken against the petitioner by the Attorney-General for not having made a declaration and entered into recognizances, under the Act of 1 William IV, c. 73, and praying for the repeal of that and all similar Acts, from Charles Bradlaugh, Sunderland Villa, Northumberland Park, Tottenham, editor of the National Reformer. (No. 16,481, 1 signature; 7T, 26 May, p. 6. )16 15

7T gives the number as 21,757. The heading in RPP is "Law of Libel—for Alteration"; under the heading "Newspapers— for Alteration of Law" another petition from Bradlaugh, apparently identical, is given as 16

592

Appendix C

26 May In favour of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, from a public meeting at St. Mary Cray, Kent. (No. 16,447, 1 signature; IT, 27 May, p. 6.)

5 June Representing the injustice of the Abyssinian War, and praying that the House will not confer its thanks upon General Sir Robert Napier and the army, and will appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the transactions relating to Abyssinia, from the Home and Foreign Affairs Association of Macclesfield, Chester. (No. 16,639, 2 signatures, summarized in entry; TT, 6 June, p. 6.) Complaining of the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh, of the National Reformer, under the Act of 1 William IV, c. 73, and praying that this and all similar Acts be repealed, from a public meeting of residents of Greenwich and Deptford. (No. 16,975, 1 signature; TT, 6 June, p. 6.) Idem, from a public meeting assembled at Cleveland Hall, Cleveland Street, Fitzroy Square. (No. 16,976, 52 signatures; TT, 6 June, p. 6.) 8 June For the repeal of the Acts of 60 George III, c. 9, and I William IV, c. 73, under which the pending prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh has been instituted, from Matthias Robinson and others. (No. 16,979,4 signatures; TT, 9 June, p. 6, which identifies the petitioners only as "certain persons at Chelsea.") 9 June In favour of the Married Women's Property Bill, from inhabitants of Belfast. (No. 16,954, 399 signatures; TT, 10 June, p. 6.) 10 June In favour of Married Women's Property Bill, from inhabitants of Birmingham. (No. 17,114, 2434 signatures; TT, 11 June, p. 6.) Idem, from inhabitants of Rochdale. (No. 17,115, 612 signatures; TT, 11 June, p. 6.) 12 June In favour of municipal government for the metropolis, from Messrs. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton, and Co., General Sir De Lacy Evans, and other ratepayers in London. (No. 17,119, 731 signatures;17 TT, 13 June, p. 6.) No. 16,970, also submitted by Mill; Nos. 16,975-6 and 16,979 below appear under the latter title. 17 7T gives the number as 731, plus those named, and probably including the next entry.

Petitions

593

Idem, from Edmund B. Ray, 15 Prince's Gate, Hyde Park. (No. 17,120, 1 signature; TT, 13 June, p. 6.) 16 June For the repeal of the Acts under which the National Reformer has recently been prosecuted, from residents in Harrow Road and its vicinity. (No. 17,226, 82 signatures; TT, 17 June, p. 8.) 17 June In favour of the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill, from James Beal, 209 Piccadilly. (No. 17,335, 1 signature; TT, 18 June, p. 6.) 25 June For extension of the elective franchise to women, from inhabitants of Lichfield. (No. 17,362, 311 signatures; TT, 26 June, p. 8.) 29 June For the extension of the elective franchise to women, from inhabitants of Alnwick. (No. 17,364, 163 signatures; TT, 30 June, p. 9.) 9 July For extension of the elective franchise to women, from Eliza Cairnes and others. (No. 17,616, 972 signatures; TT, 10 July, p. 4.) Praying that the power may be restored to parochial authorities of rating the landlords in respect of small tenements or houses let for periods less than a year, and that Clause 7 of the Representation of the People Act be so modified, from inhabitants and ratepayers of the parish of Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green, and adjacent parishes. (No. 17,620, 21 signatures, printed in App. 780, p. 363; TT, 10 July, p. 4. )18 14 July Against the proposed concessions to the Portpatrick, Belfast, and County Down Railway Companies, from Rigby Wason, of Corwar, Ayr. (No. 17,665, 1 signature, summarized in entry; TT, 15 July, p. 6.)

18 Nos. 17,621 and 17,622 repeat exactly No. 17,620, giving 14 and 23 signatures respectively.

Appendix D I. Manuscript Draft of The Westminster Election of 1865 [2] (1865) MS, Mill-Taylor Collection, M/T II/1/12, draft of No. 6.

IT is PROBABLE that many here present would wish me to explain why I have, till now, abstained from all the usual practices of a candidate, and only now for the first time appear at a meeting of the electors. My reasons were stated in the letter in which I consented to be made a candidate; but that need not hinder me from repeating them. When I said in my letter that for myself I do not desire to be in Parliament, I meant what I said. I have no personal objects to promote by it, while it would involve a great sacrifice of my tastes and pursuits, as well as of that freedom which I value the more because I have only recently acquired it, after a life passed in the restraints and confinement of a public office. These private considerations, however, I have waved; but there is something which I could not wave; the strongest repugnance to the means by which the suffrages of the electors are ordinarily sought. To be selected by an important body of one's fellow citizens as the representative of the higher part of their minds—their understandings and consciences—their sincere opinions and their patriotic feelings—is one of the very highest honours which a citizen of a free country can receive. But to get into Parliament as the representative of that portion of the electors, or that part of the electoral mind, which is to be got at by money—or which is to be reached by trickery—by saying one thing and meaning another—by making professions not meant to be acted upon or which, being contrary to one's own convictions, it would be even more dishonest to keep than to violate—this I regard as no honour at all, but a disgrace. Therefore, when some members of this great constituency made me the most unexpected and most flattering proposal to present me for your suffrages, I answered that if it were so, it should not be by spending £10,000 in corrupting and debauching (by strictly legal means of course) all among you who are corruptible and debauchable; neither should it be by taking a single pledge, except that of being always open and unreserved with you; neither should it be by soliciting your votes, for I look upon the whole system of personal solicitation as a mistake; though I am far from condemning those who merely conform to a bad custom, provided they do nothing to make the custom worse than they found it.

Manuscript Drafts

595

But election to Parliament ought not to be a matter of favour. I have no right to ask such favours, nor you to grant them: you are conferring a solemn trust, and you have no right to bestow it on any but the fittest man. This was my reply: and to the honour of Westminster (I may say that much though I am myself concerned) there was found a body of men who had a sufficiently high sense of public principle and of their own honour and that of the constituency to say, Not the man who does these things, but the man who will not do them, is the right man for Westminster, and we will try if the electors of Westminster do not think so too. That, gentlemen, is the reason why I am a candidate. And it would have been quite inconsistent with a candidature grounded on these principles, to have come among you and sought your votes directly and personally. My principles are, that you ought to elect the fittest man: would it have been decent for me to go about among you and say, I am the fittest man? What would you think of a candidate who said, It is your duty to choose a man of merit, Here am I, a man of merit, choose me? I am not here because I propose myself, but because others propose me: and I hope you do not suppose that I think all the fine things about myself which have been said and written about me, with so much exaggeration but with a strength and depth of kind feeling for which I can never be sufficiently grateful, by numbers of people almost all personally unknown to me. You will, I know, excuse what is excessive in these eulogiums, being aware how natural it is for a man to be overpraised, as well as to be unjustly attacked, at a contested election. Perhaps you will ask, if for these reasons I did not for such a length of time appear before you, why I do so now? I do it for two reasons. In the first place, I was told, by those who had good means of judging, that many of you wished to know more of me than they could learn from what I have written. Now you have a right to an opportunity of judging for yourselves of the man you are asked to vote for. Whatever you want to know about my political opinions, I am bound to tell you—and I pledged myself—it was the only pledge I gave—to tell it you with perfect openness. It would have been as easy for me as for others to have put forth a plausible profession of political faith—not like those colourless and meaningless addresses the newspapers are filled with, which Tory, Whig and Radical might equally sign—which bind them to nothing, and are consistent with almost any vote. I might have made out a long bona fide list of important subjects on which I have the satisfaction of believing that I agree with you—I might have glided gently over all points of difference and kept a discreet silence on every opinion that could startle anybody. Did I do this? I did the very opposite—I issued no address, but engaged to answer any question you chose to ask about my political opinions— and those you did ask, I answered with an unreserve which has been a kind of scandal to the electioneering world. What obliged me to say anything to you about women's voting or about representation of minorities? Would any of you have thought of questioning me on those points? Not one: but you asked me what were my opinions on reform: and being asked it did not suit with my idea of plain dealing

596

Appendix D

to keep any of them back. By this I lowered myself immensely in the opinion of those who think that the sensible thing for a candidate is to dissemble and finesse, and commit himself as little as possible. How injudicious! cried one. How unpractical! said another. "How can he expect to be elected on such a programme?" was the thought even of sincere friends. In answer to all which, I beg them to consider—First, that perhaps I would rather, if I had to choose, be honest, than be elected. Secondly, that perhaps the electors of Westminster may also have a taste for honesty, and may think that the man who deals honestly with them before he is elected, will be likely to deal honestly by them if elected. One thing I am sure of—that, even though a man may now and then lose an election by it, in the long run there is nothing so practical as honesty; and that this is a lesson politicians will have to learn. You will scarcely expect me to go through the catalogue of the political topics of the day, and tire you with things which you all know as well as myself. It is better that I should confine myself to giving explanations on any points on which you think that they are needed. All I will attempt now is to give you an idea of the general tendency of my opinions. I am here as the candidate of advanced Liberalism, and I should like to tell you what, to my understanding, that expression means. Mr. Gladstone, in one of those memorable speeches which have taught all sincere reformers in the country to look to him as then* future leader, has given us his idea of the difference between Liberalism and Toryism. Liberalism, he says, is trust in the people, limited only by prudence; Toryism is distrust of the people, limited only by fear. This is a true and apt statement of the distinction in one of its practical aspects; but there is a still larger mode of conceiving it. The Liberal is he who looks forward for his principles of government: the Tory looks backward for his. The Tory thinks that the really best model of society and government lies behind us—from which we are departing more and more; consisting in the subjection and dependence of the mass of the community, in temporal matters, to the hereditary possessors of property, in spiritual, to the Church. He accordingly opposes, up to the last moment, whatever carries us further from this model. When beaten, he may sincerely accept his defeat, as a necessity of the age; but he still hankers after the past: he still thinks that good government means the restoration of the feudal principle in some shape, perhaps a shape better adapted to the time; and he continues to resist all further progress in the new direction. The Liberal thinks and does the reverse of this. He thinks that we have not yet arrived at a perfect model of government—but that it is before us, not behind: that we are still too far from it to be even able to see exactly what it is—but that we can clearly see in what direction it lies; not in some new form of dependence but in the emancipation of the dependent classes—more freedom, more equality, more responsibility of each person for himself. That is the first article of my political creed. And this is the second. Believing as I do that society and institutions are and ought to be in a state of progressive improvement

Manuscript Drafts

597

—that it is the very nature of progress to lead us to see truths which are not yet seen to be truths—but that by a diligent study of the past, and application of thought to great questions, it is possible to see for a certain distance before us, to perceive some of these truths, and help other people to see them—I therefore think that both in politics and in other matters there are truths which it is already time to proclaim, though in the existing state of opinion the time has not come when they can be carried into practice. That, gentlemen, is what I mean by advanced liberalism. But does it follow, because a person has something to say about the future, that he must be incapable of judging of the present? That if he thinks for tomorrow, he can know nothing about today? The dunces tell you so: but I venture to reverse the proposition. The only person qualified to judge rightly or safely for today, is the one who includes tomorrow in his deliberations: who can see what things we are tending to; which of the tendencies we should favour and which resist; and who will take care that his policy of the moment shall fit us instead unfitting us for the greater good of the future. I have mentioned one of the reasons why having at first abstained from attending public meetings, I appear before you now. But there is another reason. The contest has changed its character. It is no longer personal to myself. You have not now merely to decide whether you will choose me rather than another man. The question now is, whether the representation of Westminster, hitherto the most honourable seat in the House of Commons, is to be obtained by the honest choice of the electors or by money. That the answer to this should be even doubtful is enough to rouse the strongest feeling of shame in every inhabitant of Westminster who remembers the ancient reputation of his city. We Reformers profess to desire, that the great landed nobility and gentry should no longer be able to hoist their sons and proteges into Parliament over the heads of the constituencies—passing over the minds of the electors, and working through their private interests or their hereditary subserviency. This we object to, and with reason: but what better shall we be, or what will it profit us to weaken the aristocratic influences, if all we gain is that seats in Parliament are put up to auction? What is it but putting them up to auction when they are knocked down to the man who has the longest purse, and is willing to open it widest? Of all existing political nuisances, this is the one which it most concerns all of us to resist; for it is the single one which is increasing, while almost every other is diminishing. The great facilities for moneymaking which arise from the unexampled commercial prosperity of the country, are raising up crowds of persons who have made large fortunes, or whose fathers have made fortunes for them, and whose strongest desire is to make those fortunes the means of purchasing what is called position—in other words, admission into the society of persons higher in rank than themselves. Now there is only one way in which this can be effected by money; namely, through a seat in Parliament. I am the last man to think disparagingly of such persons, or to pretend that they have no business to be in Parliament: many of them have a strong claim, by their knowledge and

598

Appendix D

abilities, to a seat in the House, and are such men as it can ill spare. But the mischief is, that it is precisely those among them who are least capable of getting elected on their merits—who have no chance of making their way into what is called good society by their talents, their education, or their breeding—it is exactly those who are tempted to employ the only other means open to them of obtaining their end, the lavish expenditure of money in corrupting electors. For there is corruption which is not technically bribery. To gain a seat by giving money to the electors is not less corruption because the elector does not receive the money for his vote, but for ostensible services; it makes no moral difference whether a working man is paid for voting, or for putting, for instance, a placard in his window. A candidate who succeeds by these means, like one who opens the public houses, goes to Parliament as the representative of the vices of the constituency. There is no hope that people will be shamed out of these things until they are cut by society for doing them. You cannot prevent such things from being attempted; but you may perhaps prevent them from succeeding. An experiment is being tried on you, the electors of Westminster. An effort is made to bring in a Tory candidate by an expenditure of money more profuse than any Tory ever ventured upon before in this city. Since it is very well known that the majority of the electors of Westminster are not Tories, it is not uncharitable to say that the supporters of the Tory candidate rely chiefly on money. Had they really thought that the electors have turned Conservative; that you have had enough of Reform; that in your opinion enough has been done in the way of constitutional improvement, and you are now anxious to prevent further change, they would have selected for the distinction of this seat one of their foremost men—one of those who are an honour to their party—such a one, let us say, as Lord Stanley. When instead of the man of greatest merit, they offer you the one who is willing to spend most lavishly, they shew plainly in what they put their trust. Will you suffer this to succeed? The eyes of all England are on you; all lovers of freedom and purity of election are looking to you with anxious hope. And there is another, a very different sort of persons who have their eyes on you too: those (they are very numerous) who cultivate a contempt for the people. All such persons are watching you, hoping to find you worthy of their contempt. They are already chuckling over what they think the probable success of the extraordinary efforts making to debauch you. They are saying that you have it not in you to elect any person but the man who will spend most money among you—that you have not public virtue for it; that public virtue is not to be expected from such people as you are; and they are eagerly waiting to see you justify their opinion of you. I trust you will disappoint them. If you elect me, and I turn out a total failure—if I disappoint every expectation which has been formed of me—you will have nothing to be ashamed of; you will have acted an honest part, and done, at all events, what seemed best for the country. Can the same thing be said if you return the candidate of a party against which Westminster has consistently protested for nearly a

Manuscript Drafts

599

century, and if his victory is due to his money? If this constituency should so degrade itself, it will be a deep mortification to all who put faith in popular representation; Westminster will have fallen from her glory, and can no longer hold her head as high as she has done; and the progress of popular principles, which cannot be stopped, will have to go forward for the present without Westminster.

II. Manuscript Draft of Representation of the People [2] (1866) MS, Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS ENG 1105, incomplete version of No. 16. ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION on which the House will be called on to divide relates ostensibly to the mere order of proceeding, it will scarcely be denied that we are really discussing the main question; and I need make no apology for confining myself to that. When it is maintained that the House ought not to pass the bill which has been proposed to it, until there has been laid before it some other proposal for the improvement of our representative system, the supposition must be that the present measure, if passed without any such supplementary measure, would be injurious. For if it would not be an injurious, but merely an incomplete measure—one after which there would still remain much to be reformed—the mere common-sense rule of doing one thing at a time would fully justify the course which the Government have adopted. Now, although according to the almost universal opinion of Reformers, many important things will remain to be done after this bill has been passed—though we are, I dare say, as sincerely desirous as the noble mover of the amendment that family and pocket boroughs should be extinguished and that the excessive political influence of a few noble and opulent families should be reduced—though in our desire to make it more difficult for wealthy men to buy their way into the House of Commons or to shut the doors of the House against poorer men by their lavish and strictly legal expenditure, I am bold to say that we do not yield to the wealthiest man present—though we are perfectly orthodox on these cardinal points of Conservatism1 quick about it—they concealed their presence so successfully—their votes made such an imperceptible difference—they had all this power of endangering our institutions and so obstinately persisted in not doing it—that honourable gentlemen are quite alarmed, and tremble at the thought of the frightful abyss into which we have not fallen. Well, Sir, it certainly appears that this amount of 'Here a page of manuscript is missing.

600

Appendix D

enfranchisement of the working people has done no harm: but though very useful in many other respects, as a representation of the classes is worth nothing at all: for it makes no difference what absolute number of voters a class has if it is always outvoted. If the working classes mustered 26 per cent in every constituency in the kingdom and no more than that proportion in any, it would be the same thing in a class point of view as not being represented at all. If indeed the mechanism of our electoral system provided any representation of minorities—if those who are outvoted in one place could join their votes with those who are outvoted in another—if any means existed by which 26 per cent of the electors could succeed in returning 26 per cent of the representatives—then indeed the arguments against which I am contending would have a claim to be considered. But as it is, the share of the working classes in the representation is not measured by the number of working men on the register, but by the number of constituencies in which working men are the majority, and even that only shews the extreme limit of the influence which the working men can exercise, not that which they will. It seems there are some half dozen constituencies in which working men are already the majority, and I put it to honourable gentlemen, would anybody ever have suspected it? At the head of these constituencies is Coventry: are the members for Coventry usually very zealous champions of working class ideas? It certainly has been remarked that these gentlemen whatever may be their politics otherwise, usually vote quite correctly on the subject of French ribbons; and as that kind of merit comes most naturally to Conservatives the members for Coventry are often Conservative. But I have not heard that any of them ever proposed a tax on power looms or anything else which might be supposed to promote the class interest of his constituents as working men, apart from their employers. If we look at any of the places where working men possess a considerable number of votes, what manner of men are the candidates for whom those votes are given? Almost always great employers of labour: al admit that the high character and enlightened opinions of the gentlemen chosen fully justifies the choice but* so far from representing the class interests of working men, they are drawn from the very class between whose immediate or apparent interest and that of working men the principal collisions take place. Considering the innumerable modes of influence to which voters are subject, I cannot but think that even if this bill so far altered the constituency that the working classes by mustering the whole of their strength, had the power of returning by small majorities 200 of the 650 members of this house, there would not be fifty of that number who would represent the feelings and opinions of the working classes or would possess their special confidence. For my own part I should not think the whole 200 too many on the principle of class representation. Even if they were unanimous there would be more than two to one against them when they were wrong: they could never carry any working class object unless they were supported "'"[written on verso of previous folio; marked for insertion at this point]

Manuscript Drafts

601

constantly [?] at least by 130 representatives of other classes, and when they obtained this support there would, I think, be a very strong presumption of their being in the right. It has been asked—and the person who has asked it with greatest emphasis is my right honourable friend the member for Calne—what practical good do we expect from lowering the franchise? What good measures are there which cannot be carried in the present House but which we expect to be able to carry in the Reformed one? Well, Sir, this is a reasonable question, and Reformers ought to be able to answer it; but it is a little unreasonable to expect that it should be answered to the satisfaction of this House. If I understand my right honourable friend correctly, he thinks we ought to come to the House with a catalogue of complaints against itself of wrong things which the House does and ought to be prevented from doing, and good things which it leaves undone, and ought to be compelled to do, and when convinced by our arguments, the House pleads guilty and cries peccavi, then it will be time to bring in a Reform Bill. Sir, my right honourable friend says we ought not to proceed on a priori reasoning but should be practical; I want to know whether this is his idea of being practical. Why, Sir, what he calls a priori reasoning, but which I call the rational probabilities of the case, are the only ground on which this matter can possibly be debated: for if ever we descend to particulars, and point out this or that in the conduct of the House which we should like to see altered, we imply what may be a good argument elsewhere but cannot possibly appear so to the House, for the very reason the House do these things is that they do not think these things wrong; if they did, they would amend them: So that we could not possibly advance our cause by entering into particulars while we should stir up all the most irritating topics in the whole field of politics. Suppose for instance—and I purposely choose a small instance to give the less offence—suppose we were to say that if the working classes had been represented it would not have been found so easy as it has been for honourable gentlemen whose cattle are slaughtered for the public good to get compensation twice over, once by a rate and once by the rise of price? I use the case only for illustration; I lay no stress upon it; but I ask, if the debate on a Reform Bill ought to consist of a series of discussions on such subjects as this, and many others much more irritating still? I will ask one more question. If, when the Reform Bill of 1831 was introduced, its proposers had foretold—which they could not do, for they did not know it themselves—that in consequence of it we should abolish the corn laws—that we should abolish the navigation laws—that we should grant free trade to all foreign nations without reciprocity—that we should reduce the postage on inland letters to a penny—that we should renounce the exercise of any authority over our colonies—and various other things which have come to pass—do honourable gentlemen think that these announcements would have greatly inclined the Parliament of the time towards passing the bill? Sir, all of us know well that we commit a thousand mistakes and hold a great

602

Appendix D

number of erroneous opinions: but we do not know which of our opinions these are, for if we did, they would not be our opinions. Therefore every reflecting man takes precautions beforehand against his own errors without waiting to have the particular instances pointed out, and if he is a conscientious man as well, if there are things which from the character of his mind or his habits of life he is in danger of not perceiving, he is glad that there should be others who will. Now this is all that I ask honourable gentlemen to concede in the present case. What is the reason why we are so often told that classes should be represented? I apprehend, it is because every class knows some things which are not so well known by other people, and ought to have the opportunity of stating them; and because every class has peculiar interests which require to be protected, and no protection is so effectual as its own. These may be called a priori doctrines, but so is the doctrine that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points: they are as much truths of common sense and common observation as that is, and every person of common sense acts upon them as confidently. Well then, I claim the benefit of these principles for the working classes. They require it more than any other class, for reasons which are obvious. The class of lawyers, for instance, or the class of merchants, are amply represented in this House, although there are no constituencies a majority of which consists of lawyers or of merchants; but it must be remembered that a successful lawyer or merchant easily gets into Parliament by his wealth and social position, and when there is just as good a representative of lawyers and merchants as if he had been elected on purpose; but no working man is ever likely to be returned to Parliament except by a constituency of working men—and not only no working man, but no man who looks at working men's questions with working men's eyes. Is there, I wonder, a single member of this House who knows and could explain to the satisfaction of working men, the working men's view of strikes, for instance? Are there many of us who so thoroughly understand the subject of apprenticeships, let us say, or of the hours of labour, as to have nothing to learn on the subject from intelligent operatives? I know that along with much valuable knowledge and many just ideas you would sometimes find pressed upon you erroneous opinions—mistaken notions of what is for the true interest of the working classes. And if those classes were preponderant in the House, attempts might possibly be made to carry some of those wrong notions into practice. But there is no question at present about making the working classes preponderant in the House: what is asked for them is such a measure of representation as shall ensure that their opinions may have a fair hearing, and may be met by fair arguments addressed to their own understanding, by persons who can enter into their manner of looking at questions and can adapt their arguments to it. This is never done now. When anything at all is said in this House on the questions which are near the hearts of the working men, all the doctrines which they require to be convinced of are taken for granted; or if any

Manuscript Drafts

603

reasons are given, they are such as never reach their minds. In general, when people attempt to correct the errors of working people they do it as if they were speaking to babies—any reason is thought good enough. They are so little aware of what is in the mind of a working man that their answers are always wide of the mark. They never touch his real difficulties and merely give him a contemptuous opinion of those who use them. Do not suppose that working men would always be unconvincible by such arguments as ought to convince them. It is not one of the faults of democracy to be obstinate in error. An Englishman who had lived some years in the United States recently expressed his opinion of the Americans by this observation: he said "they are the most teachable people on the face of the earth." It is not indeed to be expected that an old country should be as teachable as a new one, in which old traditions, and fixed habits have less power; but I believe neverthless, it will be found that the educated artisans, those at least who interest themselves in politics, are more teachable than any other class. There are several reasons why they should be so: for one thing, they are, as a rule, more in earnest than any other class; their opinions are more genuine, less influenced by hopes of personal advancement; and their social position is not such as to breed self-conceit. Above all, there is one thing to which I believe almost every one will testify who has had much to do with them and it is a point of which my own experience supplies very striking examples: there is no class which so well bears to be told of its faults, and to be told even in harsh terms, if they believe that the person who so speaks to them speaks what he thinks, and has no purpose of his own to promote by it. I can hardly conceive a nobler course of national education than the debates of this House will become, when the various notions, right and wrong, which are fermenting in the minds of the working classes, and many of which go down very deep into the principles of the social union, are fairly argued and genuinely discussed in this place. It has been remarked of all classes of persons with what comparative readiness they resign themselves even to the refusal of what they ask, when everything which they could have said for themselves has been said by somebody for them in the course of the discussion. The working classes have never had this tranquillizing assurance—they have always felt that they were judged without being listened to—and it is not in human nature to bear this without deep dissatisfaction. If I may now be permitted to say, in general terms avoiding all topics that can give offence, in what respect I think the proceedings of this House would be practically improved by the presence in it of a body of persons representing the opinions and wishes of working men, I may refer honourable gentlemen to Tocqueville who is so favourite an authority in our political discussions when2

2

The manuscript ends here.

604

Appendix D

III. Manuscript Draft of Women's Suffrage [ 1 ] (1869) MS, Mill-Taylor Collection, Vol. XLI, full draft of No. 144.

THE FIRST THING which presents itself for us men who have joined this Society—a Society instituted by ladies to procure the protection of the suffrage for women—is to congratulate them on the success of this their first effort in political organisation. The admission of women to the suffrage is now a practical question. What was, not very long ago, a mere protest in behalf of abstract right, has grown into a definite practical aim, seriously pursued by many thousands of active adherents. No sooner did a few ladies of talent and influence, fostered in those principles of justice and believing in those elements of progress which are now renewing the life of every country in the world—no sooner, I say, did a few of these ladies give the signal that the time was come to claim for women a share in those blessings of freedom which are the passion and the glory of every noble nation—than there rallied round them unexpected thousands of women, eager to find expression for aspirations and wishes which we now learn that multitudes of our country women had long cherished in silence. The thousands who have signed the petitions for women's suffrage, year after year, are evidence that I do not exaggerate when I say this. For my own part, I have all my life held the opinion that women have the same right to the suffrage which men have; and it has been my good fortune to know many ladies much better fitted to exercise it than the majority of the men of my acquaintance. I may say too, to the credit of my own perspicacity, that I have long been of opinion that the disclaimers of all wish for political or any other equality with men, which until quite lately have been almost universal among women, were but a form of that graceful and amiable way of making a virtue of necessity, which always distinguishes women. Nevertheless, I must acknowledge, I did not expect the amount of sympathy, and of more than sympathy—of ardent and zealous support—which this movement has called forth among women and among men also of all opinions and parties. We have had a success, quite out of proportion to our apparent means, and which would be unaccountable were it not for certain potent allies that have been working for us. The first of these precious auxiliaries is the sense of justice. When not stifled by custom or prejudice, the natural feeling of justice is on our side. We are fighting against privilege on one side, disabilities and disqualifications on the other. We are protesting against arbitrary preferences; against making favorites of some, and shutting the door against others. We are claiming equal chances, equal opportunities, equal means of self-protection, for both halves of mankind. That political suffrage which men are everywhere demanding for themselves as the sole means by which their other rights can be secured to them, we, for the same reason,

Manuscript Drafts

605

and in the name of the same principles, demand for women too. We therefore take our stand on natural justice; and to appeal to that, is to invoke a mighty power. The other auxiliary which is working for us, with ever increasing strength, is the progress of the age; what may be called the modern spirit. All the tendencies which are the boast of the time; all those which are the characteristic features and animating principles of modern improvement—are on our side. There is, first, the growing ascendancy of moral force over physical; of social influences over brute strength; of the idea of right over the law of might. Then, there is the philanthropic spirit; that which seeks to raise the weak, the lowly, the oppressed. There is the democratic spirit; the disposition to extend political rights, and to consider any portion of the community as insufficiently cared for unless it has a voice in choosing those by whom the laws are made and administered. There is the free trade spirit; the desire to take off restrictions; to break down barriers; to set people free to make their own circumstances, instead of chaining them down by law or custom to circumstances made for them. Then there is the force of that which, to the shame of past history, I am obliged to call the new conception of human improvement and happiness; that they do not consist in being passively ministered to, but in active self-development. And over and above these specific practical forces at work in society, we have on our side one of the strongest and best modern characteristics—not pointing, as those do, to a particular course of outward action, but consisting in a general disposition of our own minds: the habit of estimating human beings by their intrinsic worth; by what they are, and by what they do; not by what they are born to, or by the place in which accident or the law has classed them. Those who are fully penetrated with this spirit, cannot help feeling rich and poor, women and men, to be equals before the State, as, from the time of the Christian era they have been proclaimed equal in the sight of God. And this feeling is giving us powerful aid in our attempt to convert that Christian ideal into a human reality. To shew how unequivocally and emphatically the spirit of the age is on our side, we need only consider the various social improvements which are in course of being attempted, or which the age has fully made up its mind to attempt. There is not one of those improvements which would not help the enfranchisement of women; and there is not one of them which the enfranchisement of women would not help. There is not one of them which can be even tolerably realized unless women, with their moral and intellectual capabilities properly developed, are associated in the work. From the time when society takes upon itself the duties required of it by the present state of civilization, it cannot do without the intelligent cooperation of women: and the pedantic nonsense we now hear about the sphere of women will be felt to be merely ridiculous when pleaded as an excuse for excluding women from the minor matters of politics, when their assistance cannot be dispensed with in the most arduous. Look at education, for instance: that is almost the one great cry of the day.

606

Appendix D

Statesmen, scholars, public writers, all join in it: great and small, rich and poor, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, the higher, the middle, and the working classes with one voice declare that the country cannot do without a good system of national education—descending to the very bottom of society, and, allow me to add, ascending also to the top. The best people have been saying this for generations; but the political changes recently made, and the prospect we have of more, have made the necessity manifest to all. Now, then, we ask of rich and poor, Tories, Whigs and Radicals: Are you going to educate a nation without women? Let alone the equal right of women to a share in the benefit; I ask, can it be given to the rest of us without their active help? When once we set about really teaching the children of all classes of the community—it will not be like the merely nominal teaching they mostly now receive—we shall need a vastly greater number of schoolmasters than we can afford to pay if we reject the assistance of half, indeed of much more than half, the available strength. Women are the acknowledged best teachers of young children; and numbers of them are eager both as volunteers and as professionals, to put their hand to the work. The only hindrance to their being equally capable instructors of more advanced pupils, is that they cannot teach what they have not been allowed to learn. They will have to be taught all the more valuable branches of knowledge if only that they may teach them to others. In the country in which there is the widest diffusion of popular instruction, the Northern States of America, a large majority of the teachers are already women; and that, by no means exclusively in the elementary schools: and they are found to be particularly efficient teachers of male pupils. Is it likely, then, that when women find themselves, side by side with the men of the present, teaching and training the men of the future, they will believe in any right of their pupils to political superiority over them? Will they feel themselves less worthy of a vote, think you, or less entitled to it, than the men whom they themselves have taught how to use their votes? And I should like to see the face of the man, so taught, who would stand up and refuse it to them. Let us turn next to the management of the poor: and by the poor, I mean the recipients of public relief; the pauper population. That formidable difficulty weighs on the spirits of all our thinkers, and of all conscientious public administrators: and the more they think, the more they seem overwhelmed with its arduousness. I venture to predict that this great national, and more than national, this human concern will never be successfully treated until women take their share, and perhaps the leading share in the management of it. A wide experience has taught to thoughtful men, that the only true principle of a poor law is to give relief (unless of a very temporary nature) to adults, nowhere but in public establishments—in workhouses, and, for those who need them, hospitals: and this method has been tried: but the workhouses and the workhouse hospitals have been so execrably managed; the pillage has been so profligate, and the unhappy inmates have been so brutally neglected and ill-used; that the system has broken down, and

Manuscript Drafts

607

public feeling shrinks from enforcing it. If this is ever remedied, it will be when pauper establishments are looked after by capable women. As mere visitors, it is to them we in great part owe the discovery of the enormities by which the public have been sickened, and which has escaped the watchfulness of men expressly selected for their fitness to be inspectors of poorhouses. The fittest person to manage a workhouse is the person who knows best how to manage a house. A woman who has learnt to govern her own servants, will know how to do the same thing with workhouse servants. Very few are the male guardians and inspectors sufficiently conversant with details, to be competent to check the dishonesty, to stimulate the zeal, and to overcome the indolence of all those concerned in administering to the wants of any large agglomeration of human beings. Every experienced traveller knows that there are few comfortable inns when there is no hostess. And the gigantic peculations of the commissariats of armies, joined to the dreadful sufferings of the wounded soldiers from the insufficiency of the medical and nursing staffs, all bear testimony to the fact that men do not possess the heaven-born faculty which they arrogate to themselves for doing well on a large scale what they disdain to serve an apprenticeship to doing on a small scale. If home is the natural sphere of women—and I am by no means called upon to contest the assertion—those branches of politics which require faculties that can only be learnt at home, are the natural sphere of women too. But there are great spheres, and little spheres: and some people want women to be always content with the little spheres. I don't. In the same manner, in all that concerns the details of the public expenditure: what superintendence and control is comparable to that of an experienced mother of a family, who knows, or has learnt to find out, what things ought to cost, and whose daily business it has been to discover and check malversation and waste in every department of a large household? Few men have had much of this kind of practice; multitudes of women have had it. If we are to meet the demand of the age for a government at once cheap and efficient, which shall cost little, but shall give us all that we ought to have for the money, the most vigilant and capable agents for making the money go as far as it can, would generally be found among women. One important public function, at least, has devolved on women from the commencement: the nursing of the sick is a privilege which men have seldom denied to women. The nursing of the sick in most public establishments is from the necessity of the case, mainly performed by women: and it is now understood, that they ought to be educated women. No ignorant person can be a good nurse: a nurse requires to know enough of the laws of health and the treatment of disease, to be at least able to observe sanitary rules, and to understand the meaning of symptoms: and much more than this will be required when the prevention and cure of disease become a branch of public administration; a result towards which things are rapidly tending. There are many difficulties in dealing with the poor: many hindrances, both moral and economical, to doing for them all that most of us would

608

Appendix D

wish to do. One thing, however, the nation appears to have fully made up its mind that it will not grudge them: and that is, the use of their health. In this one respect it is felt that the poor law instead of doing too much, does not do nearly enough: the medical staff of our Unions is wretchedly underpaid, and nothing near so numerous as it ought to be. And how is it to be made efficient; how are the localities to afford the expense of providing a sufficient number of persons with the requisite qualifications—if we persist in shutting the door upon those women who are claiming from us medical education in order that they may be fit for such duties as these? Until the medical profession is opened to women there never will be an adequate supply of educated medical practitioners for any but the rich. And, independently of regular practitioners, there are numbers of women who from their domestic occupations, cannot give their whole time, but who would willingly give part of it, either as volunteers or at a small remuneration, for work which would be too costly if paid for at the value of the time of a medical man in good private practice. But when women are entrusted with functions like these, and educated for them, will they be content to be excluded from the common privileges of citizenship? and how long will it be possible to exclude them? Society is feeling every day more and more, that the services of women are needed for other uses than "to suckle fools and chronicle small beer." Many are now saying that they ought to be better educated, in order that they may be able to educate men: and truly, if they are to educate men, the education of a well educated man cannot well be denied to them. But these very moderate reformers are falling into the same mistake about women, which was committed about the working classes. People were willing to educate the working men, but expected them, after being educated, to be content with the same treatment which they met with before. They would be quite happy, it was thought, when their improved faculties qualified them to be more useful servants, and would never think of claiming their share of mastership, nor a voice in the choosing of masters. It has not so turned out with the working classes; nor will it so turn out with women. Those who are fit to train men for their work, will think themselves fit to take a share in the work, or, at the lowest, in choosing those who are to direct it. The higher education of women, and their political emancipation, are sure to go forward together. We are safe, then, in affirming that our cause has a powerful backing; since it has for its allies the great forces which are at work everywhere striving to improve the world. Our success would greatly strengthen all those forces: and they, by their increasing strength, tend to accelerate our success: illustrating the truth, that improvements aid one another; that all good causes are allied; that whoever helps forward one great public object proves in the end to have promoted many more. In the full assurance that it will be so with us, our business is to go on doing what, as a Society, we have hitherto done; to strive for the suffrage, and for the suffrage only. The suffrage, while it is the road to other progress, commits no one as to what other

Manuscript Drafts

609

things progress consists in. Let us gain that, and whatever is desirable for women will ultimately follow, without its being necessary at present to define, or even possibly to foresee, all that is desirable. The mere fact of claiming the suffrage has given an impulse such as had never been given before, to all proposals for doing away with any injustice to women. Since the suffrage has been claimed, a bill for allowing married women to be the owners of their own property, which had been laid on the shelf for ten years with other uninteresting trifles, has been reintroduced into Parliament with a good prospect of success: and the movement for the higher education of women is spreading in all directions, with a considerable diversity of means insomuch that women have now a chance of obtaining a really good education almost as soon as men. We of this Society shall best promote these important movements by taking no part in them as a Society, whatever any of us may think it ought to do as individuals; but pressing forward with all our strength what virtually includes them all, the suffrage. With that, we shall in time obtain what is needed, whatever that may be; but until the suffrage is obtained, we have gained nothing which may not be resumed any day at the caprice of our rulers. In these times, the great practical distinction—the line of demarcation between those who can protect themselves and those who are at the mercy of others—is the political franchise: all who have rights to protect now look to that as the only effectual means for their protection. Even in America it was found that to abolish Slavery was not enough: the negroes were not really free until they had the suffrage: representative assemblies in the election of which they had no voice, inflicted or tolerated treatment which would speedily have brought them back to a servitude almost worse than their previous state. In a political age, such as this is, women will never be of equal account with men, will never be felt to be entitled to equal consideration, so long as men have votes and women have not. The wider extension of the suffrage to others, so long as women are excluded from it, is a positive injury to them, for it is rapidly making them the only excluded class—the only people whom the law does not deem worthy of a voice in choosing their rulers, or whom it does not sufficiently care for to extend to them that protection. The suffrage is the turning point of women's cause; that alone would ensure them an equal hearing and fair play. With it they cannot long be refused any just right, or excluded from any fair advantage: without it, their interests and feelings will always be a minor consideration, and it will be thought of little consequence how much their sphere is circumscribed, or how many modes of using their faculties are denied to them. Let us, then, continue to concentrate all our efforts on the suffrage; inviting all who wish for the higher education of women, all who desire justice to them, in the matter of property and earnings, all who wish for their admission to professions and careers now closed to them, to aid us in our enterprise as the surest means of accelerating the particular improvement in which they feel a special interest.

610

Appendix D

IV. Manuscript Draft of The Education Bill [1] (1870) MS, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph file A.MS.*49M-85, full draft of No. 145.

THE RESOLUTION WHICH HAS BEEN MOVED, relates to a defect which as the Bill was originally framed, was its greatest blot: and even after the large concessions—for they are large concessions—which we may now consider to have been made by the Government, enough of evil is left to call for a strong protest. Though there are many things in the Bill which we wish altered, its other defects are of the nature of shortcomings: what is done we approve, but we wish it were done more thoroughly: the difference between what the Bill gives, and what we desire, is the difference between good and better: but on the point now before us, it is the difference between good and bad. The Bill does not simply halt and hang back in the path of good: it does positive evil; it introduces a new religious inequality. And even the promised attenuations leave a great part of the evil untouched, for they leave the whole of its principle. Teachers are still to be employed and paid by the whole community to teach the religion of a part. True, this is now to be done out of school hours; and I would by no means depreciate the value of this concession. I should be glad to forget as soon as possible what the Bill would have been without it. Though brought in by a government which has gained such high distinction as the destroyer of religious inequality in Ireland, a more effectual scheme could scarcely have been devised by the greatest champion of ecclesiastical ascendancy for enabling the clergy of the Church of England to educate the children of the greater part of England and Wales in their own religion at the expense of the public. Hitherto instruction has only been given to those who asked for it, but we are now going (at least we hope so) to teach every child: and the Bill gave up to the local bodies, which in the rural districts means the squire and the parson, all the neglected children—the children of all who care little about religion, of all who are dependent, all who are under obligations for charitable offices, all who are too timid to risk displeasing their superiors by sending in a solemn refusal in writing to do what they are wanted to do and because the Non Conformists would not stand this, they were told—though, I will do the Government the justice to say, not by them—that their motive could not be religious or political principle but could only be unworthy sectarian jealousy. By the promised concessions this blot is in great part—I wish I could even now say entirely—taken out of the Bill. But the principle remains of teaching the religion of a part with funds levied by taxation from the whole; and a measure infected by this bad principle cannot give satisfaction to any persons but of the dominant creed, nor to impartial persons of any creed.

Manuscript Drafts

611

We may be told, indeed, that Dissenters may teach their own doctrines if they please, and in the School buildings too. They may, if after deducting the school hours and the extra hours for church teaching, sufficient time remains. But they must pay the whole expense and their share of the cost of the Church teaching besides. We are told, again, that in places where the Dissenters are the strongest, it will be they and not the church that are enabled to teach their own doctrines at other people's expense; as if an injustice in one place could be cured by an injustice in another. But this permission to tyrannize in their turn wherever they are strong enough, the Dissenters are so extremely unreasonable as not to value. It is well known that they do not desire their distinctive doctrines to be taught in schools, indeed there are few places probably where any single denomination is sufficiently numerous to make this practicable. The system deliberately chosen by the Dissenters is that of the British schools, where religious teaching is limited to reading the Bible without note or comment. Besides, we all know that the practical strength of the Dissenters is in the large towns, and districts similar to towns: if they happen to be in a majority anywhere else, we see by the example of Wales how little it avails them. But in the large towns, even where the Dissenters are the strongest, the Church party is sure to be strong enough to reduce them to a compromise, and make the Boards either subsidize existing Church schools, or if they use the power given them by the Bill of founding others, to found a Church school by the side of every unsectarian one. So that the church party will not probably, in a single instance, be in that position of victims, which it is supposed ought to be such a consolation to the Dissenters for being victims in three fourths of the Kingdom. Another thing we are told: that what we complain of as a new grievance, exists already: by the national grants in aid to denominational schools, we are all of us taxed for teaching religions not our own. Well: there are some of us perhaps who might have a good deal to say against this too, as a permanent institution, and who live in hope of its ultimate absorption into something of which they can more thoroughly approve. But we are not going now to begin this system: it exists: When it was first established nothing better could have been obtained: and it still does good, though we may learn, if we do not know it, from Mr. Mundella's speech, how sadly the result falls short of the claims made for it. But we do not desire to destroy what we have got until we have replaced it by something better. The worst point in the system, the bigotted refusal of grants in aid to secular schools, is to be abandoned: and the Bill provides that if the Boards, instead of providing new schools, elect to subsidize the old, they shall subsidize all denominations impartially—secular schools, I hope, included. For this the framers of the Bill deserve our cordial thanks; but it is puzzling to find such opposite principles acted on in two different parts of the same Bill, and such different measures meted out to the old schools and the new. It looks like a compromise between two parties in the

612

Appendix D

Government, on the plan of giving something to each: the sort of thing, in short, which makes our legislation the jumble of inconsistencies that it is. Some have the face to tell us that the ratepayer after all is not taxed for the religious instruction: the rate is so limited by the Bill that he will really pay only for the secular teaching. Indeed! then who does pay for the religious teaching? Do the Church party mean to raise the money by a voluntary subscription? The Times, of Monday, throws out such a suggestion: if one could hope that it would be adopted, I should not have another word to say; except that since, after Mr. Gladstone's concessions, the religious is no longer to be mixed up with the secular teaching, it may as well be given by a different person altogether, when the impartiality would be complete. But if the expense is not defrayed by subscription, it must be paid by the Privy Council, that is to say by the tax payer: and do not Dissenters pay taxes? Is there any conscience clause against the tax gatherer? There is one more thing said which might well amaze any one but those who are past being astonished at any of the tricks which can be played with words. We are told that in our care for the conscience of the minority we violate that of the majority, who conscientiously disapprove of schools in which religion is not taught. Now, if what their conscience objects to is sending their own children to such schools, there is no compulsion; they can found schools of their own. It is necessary to say this; for the principal speakers in support of the Bill do not seem to be aware of it; they appear never to have heard of such an idea; they accuse us of expelling religion from the schools, aas if there were no schools to be had but those paid for from the rates;0 as if we were attempting to propose to prohibit all schools except secular ones, or to throw some great obstacle in their way: while all we demand is, that those who make use of the religious teaching should pay for it themselves instead of taxing others to do it. So that the conscientious scruple which we are accused of violating, is not a scruple against going without the religious instruction but against paying for it, and their conscience requires them to get it paid for by other people. Is not this a curious spectacle of the richest and most powerful part of the nation, who with two thirds of their expenses sure to be paid by the Privy Council and the School rate, cannot bear to do what the smallest denomination of Dissenters cheerfully does: pay their own religious teachers? But is not this exactly because they are the rich and powerful? It is not the poor and the weak who dream of throwing their personal pecuniary obligations upon the public. It is a privilege only desired by those who do not need it but who think it their right, because they have always had the power of exacting it. It appears however some of these people have a conscience so extremely delicate that it is wounded not if their own children, but if any other people's children attend a school in which religion is not taught. The very existence of a secular school within the country at least with aid from the State is a burden on their a a

~ [markedfor insertion from f. 3v]

Manuscript Drafts

613

consciences as the very existence of heretics was on the conscience of the Grand Inquisitor. And we, because we decline to defer to this remarkable conscientious scruple, disregard the rights of conscience. But the rights of conscience do not extend to imposing one's conscience as a rule upon other people. I dare say we should be told, if it was any one's interest to do it, that we are no lovers of liberty because we will not allow a king to take the liberty of hanging or guillotining people at his pleasure. But the liberty we stand up for is the equal liberty of all, not the greatest possible liberty of one and slavery of all the rest. There ought to be room in the world for more than one man's liberty; and there ought to be room in the world for more than one conscience. Let all parties have what religious teaching their conscience approves and they are willing to pay for. But when a man tells me his conscience requires that other people shall have religious teaching whether they like it or not, and shall have it in schools though they would prefer to have it elsewhere, and that they shall not be helped like other people in their secular teaching unless they consent to take religious teaching along with it, I tell him that he is not asserting his own freedom of conscience, but trampling on that of other people. If this is a right of conscience, it was prejudice and bigotry to complain of the persecutions of the Vaudois or of the Protestants. The case is less flagrant, but the principle is the same.

Appendix E Missing Speeches Mill seems to have attended few public meetings at which he did not speak. On only two occasions is it known that he made some remarks of which no report has been discovered.

1. 9 July, 1870. The Land Tenure Reform Association met at the Freemason's Tavern. Reports appeared in The Times, 12 July, p. 12, and in The Bee-Hive, 16 July, p. 342, the latter saying that Mill made "a short address" from the chair. 2. 6 August, 1870. The Representative Reform Association met in their offices, 9 Buckingham Street, Strand. The reports of 8 August in The Times, p. 10, and the Pall Mall Gazette, p. 6, say that following the paper read by the chairman, Thomas Hare, on the progress of proportional voting in various counties, Mill was among those who took part in the discussion.

Appendix F War and Peace, by Helen Taylor (1871) MS fragment, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph file A.MS *49M-85; no full version is known, nor is the occasion for which it was prepared. In Mill's hand; on 2r is written in Helen Taylor's hand, "H T. Feby 1871."

THE CONTEMPLATION of all the brutal horrors of war, as well as of the extremely unsatisfactory way in which after all it settles disputes, irresistibly arouses the question why the disputes of civilised nations cannot be settled as those of private individuals are settled. The first reply to this is unfortunately only too plain: and the difficulty of obtaining any impartial judge or jury in international disputes has hitherto been an insuperable bar to their pacific settlement. A second reply, less obvious, but hitherto of not less practical weight, is the difficulty of finding any one willing to put themselves in the position of the tax payer who provides the policeman and the prison for the individual evil doer. No nation will put itself forward to incur the expense and the danger of war, without the prospect of gaining something by it for itself. And there exists a party of no inconsiderable weight in this country that even lays it down as an axiom that we ought never to go to war but for our own interests. If this axiom is right, there is either no parity at all between individuals and nations, or else those who hold it right to carry out their principles by refusing to appropriate any part of the national revenues to the public administration of justice between one citizen and another: for what business have we to pay a policeman to interfere in any case where he himself is not personally concerned? But in fact I believe that on examining the question we shall find that there is not really any parity between the administration of justice at least in the form in which it exists in a great measure in the most highly civilised nations, and which it is constantly tending to assume in the hands of the greatest thinkers and best law reformers and any of those ideas of international arbitration which present themselves spontaneously to the mind when we ask why the disputes of nations cannot be settled by some such means as those which settle the disputes between individuals. I believe that if ever the disputes between nations are so settled, it will be by taking as our model, not courts of arbitration, but courts of law; not courts of law as they existed in the early stages of human society, but as they exist in their

616

Appendix F

most perfect forms: and that the narrow and technical view of his duties held by the modern English common law judge will be found the most effectual by whoever should attempt to avert the bloody consequences of international quarrels. To shew this clearly one must go back to the consideration not so much of the fundamental causes which lead to war (for I believe that dwelling too much upon these has led us into a wrong track in seeking to avoid war altogether) but of the fundamental causes which lead to our abhorrence of war.l Perhaps it is in the ambiguity of the word Peace that we ought really to seek for the explanation of the long persistence of war, as a phenomenon among civilised nations. As long as we have but a confused knowledge of what we desire, our success in obtaining it will depend not so much upon the ardour with which we desire it, as upon the ardour and the frequency of those desires which conflict with it. When man does not act with his reason, he is a prey to instincts, and passions which are little removed from instincts. The first step towards working with our reason towards the attainment of any desirable aim, is to define clearly what it is that is desired: the second, which portion of what we desire can most readily be attained. Now it is precisely this first step which does not appear to me to have been ever systematically attempted for the attainment of Peace. I define our object as the attainment of Peace, rather than the avoidance of war, because I take it that the word peace is really, in all languages and in the human mind, the correlative of war, and the attainment of peace means the avoidance of that pain on account of which war is hateful. But what I have to say will apply equally well whether we take it in a negative or in a positive form: whether we consider it as our object to avoid war or to obtain peace. What, then, are the delights of peace, which make the word so sweet in all its associations? I think we shall find that the idea is a peculiarly complex one. We associate with it all the pleasures of concord and harmony, benevolent emotions, sympathy with our fellow creatures, facility of intercourse and consequently all the enjoyments that arise from commerce. Besides these ideas, we are apt to associate with the idea of peace things that more properly belong to the domain of liberty; the undisturbed possession of wealth, freedom of expansion of our energies etc., in all directions, personal safety for ourselves and those who are dear to us, and security from insult. One reason why the world has not hitherto abhorred war, and valued peace as much as we are now beginning to think they deserve, is one which we are very apt to lose sight of: namely, that it is only quite of late that any nations have really possessed these blessings of liberty. For a man's abhorrence of war and love of peace are naturally not so intense when in a state of peace he undergoes at the hands of his political masters all the most serious sufferings of a state of war. The ! Here Helen Taylor has written "See A"; the next folio is headed "A" (and that insertion, running for two sides, completes the manuscript).

War and Peace

617

enjoyment of security of life, honour, and property, freedom of intercourse, liberty of commerce, and various kindred advantages of free and civilised society, are therefore essential antecedents to that horror of war among all classes of the community which is beginning to be a characteristic feature of modern times; and when we consider this, we shall see less cause to be surprised that greater progress has not yet been made towards getting rid of war itself. The same considerations will apply, although in a less marked degree, to the physical sufferings and the great mortality among those actually engaged in war. The progress of civilisation and of the medical art undoubtedly diminishes the amount of physical suffering with which men are familiar. With every improvement, therefore, in these things, war becomes more exceptional, and stands out more strikingly from the general course of human life as a cause of agony and death. As plague, pestilence, and famine cease to be conspicuous among us, war stands out with ever increasing distinctness as a cause of human suffering, and the main agent in violent and premature death.

Appendix G Textual Emendations

IN THIS LIST, following the page and line numbers, the reading of the copy-text is given first, and then the amended reading in square brackets, with an explanation if required. If there is no explanation, it may be assumed that there is an obvious typographical error, or else that the change is made for sense or for consistency within the item. For a description of changes not here listed, see Ixxi above. Typographical errors in versions other than the copy-text are ignored. 6.12 of a [of such a] [as in C] 6.35 peeople [people] 7.18 100 [100,] [as in C] 7.20 persons [societies] [as in C] 7.31 distrustworthy [untrustworthy] [as in C] 9.12 to make [should make] [as in C] 11.8 carry [curry] 14.14 Wesminster [Westminster] 23.7 to [for] [as in all other versions] 24.15 subservience [subserviency] [as1 in manuscript] 26.6 party, [party] [as in manuscript] 29.26 I [it] [as in DT and for sense] 33.4-5 to that [from that] [as in MS] 33.30 watching after [watching over] [as in MS] 40.12 Mills [Mill] 48.7 other hand [one hand] [as in TT] 56.23 think. I [I think.] 58.10 few [free] [as in MS,DN] 62.4 consequences they [consequences-they] [as in PD] 62.27 classes, in [classes; on] [altered in SC] 63.38 this or [this and] [altered in SC; as in PD] 65.20 and most [and much] [altered in SC; as in PD] 67.1 interests [interest] [altered in SC; as in PD] 68.5 good and is honest [good and honest] [altered in SC; PD reads good, honest] 68.11 -unless I am mistaken. And (it [ .-Unless I am mistaken, (and it] [altered in SC]

Textual Emendations

619

71.10 It fact [In fact] 89.6 let [lest] [as in DT,MS] 94.29 Hislop [Heslop] [infact] 94.29 Lake [Luke] [in fact] 98.12 hopefulness, [hopefulness] [as in DN, MP] 112.1 required [requires] [as in PD] 118.17 was utterly [ utterly ] 132.6 ta [to] 132.30 all in [in all] 133.32 trade's [trades'] [as in pamphlet] 133.35 trades [trades'] [as in pamphlet] 156.35 sedulusly [sedulously] 163.27-8 circumstance [circumstances] 169.2 householder [householder's] [as in DT] 173.12 common [the common] [as in DT] 173.21 hear [bear] [as in DT,MS,S] 192.11 inconsistent, [inconsistent-] 196.11 and [or] 198.11 composed, [composed?] 198.15 Why [Why,] 199.3 Why [Why,] 199.33 beloved [believed] 200.1 magistrates, [magistrates?] 201.1 and the honourable gentleman mentioned [such as] [to maintain direct reporting] 206.6 only applied if [only if] [to fit main text] 206.13 Mr. J.S. Mill [He] [to fit main text] 206.13 recognised [recognized] [as in main text] 210.14 represention [ representation ] 211.8 case, [case.] 211.11 gentlemen [Gentlemen] [as in main text] 211.25 lead [led] 214.26 apportunity [opportunity] 215.9 regretable [regrettable] 216.27 constitional [constitutional] 216.30 will [will] 217.25 before-hand [beforehand] [as in SSC] 219.19 Most [most] [to conform to main text] 222.2 done its [done in its] [as in PD] 223.5 natural [national] [as in PD] 224.4 are [were] [as in PD] 224.7 flag [flags] [as in PD] 226.11 it [we] [as in PD] 226.29 professing [profess] [as in PD] 231.5 aldermen, [aldermen] 238.21 and the Artisans' [and another was the Artisans'] [tofit main text] 240.20 Althought [Although] 240.29 pain [plan] 242.8 laughter [ laughter. ] 252.3 and of our having been very slow [and very slow] [to fit main text]

620

Appendix G

259.4-5 their favour [its favour] 260.6 sublet [sub-let] [as in main text] 260.9 subletting [sub-letting] [as in main text} 262.15 at at [at] 263.22 enquiry [inquiry] [as elsewhere in speech} 265.14 provision, [provision] [for sense} 273.27 community; [community,] [to fit main text} 274.27 them, [them was] [to fit main text} 283.12 value, [value?] [as in TT] 287.15 poisen [poison] 288.18 Bil[Bill] 300.13 Gentlemen [Gentleman] 307.22 Gentleman [Gentlemen] 308.36 started [stated] 309.42 therefore [therefore,] 313.n3 even [Even] [to fit main text} 316.19 Gentlemen [Gentleman] 319.3 eight [ eighteen] [ in fact} 319.25 Parliamentary elections [Parliamentary Elections] [as elsewhere speech} 323.24 there s [there is] 323.39 that [that,] [as in DT] 324.17 Poor law [poor law] [as in MS] 330.8 tribunal [tribunal,] [as in DN] 330.17 effort. . . honourably [effort, . . . honourably,] [as in DN] 330.22 property, [ property; ] [as in DN ] 330.29 who [who,] [as in DN] 330.31 jurisdiction [jurisdiction,] [as in DN] 330.37 session, [session-] [as in DN] 331.3 Schreiber's [Schreiber] [as in DN] 331.5 party- [party,] [as in DN] 331.8 end- [end;] [as in DN] 331.24 better Bishops [ the better Bishops ] 336.35 advantages [advantage] 339.11 daresay [ dare say ] 340.23 partial [partially] 342.34 bread, "[bread.] 345.16 will [would] 352.28 Brigthon [Brighton] 353.41 charities, [charities?] 357.22 and [which] 358.1 law; also as [law also; as] [in italics in this ed.} 362.6 tories [Tories] [as in DT] 362.22 tories [Tories] [as in DT] 366.23 wated [wanted] 368.13 anything [ nothing ] 372.8 Aries Defour [ Arles-Dufour] 372.10 State [city] 372.15 states [States] 372.22-3 discussions [discussion] [as in MS,DT,TT]

in

Textual Emendations 372.26 is [are] 382.4 evil for [evil, for] [as in manuscript] 383.4 strongest [strongest,] [as in manuscript] 383.5 peoples' [people's] [as in manuscript] 383.17 compromise [compromise,] [as in manuscript] 383.20 probably [probably,] [as in manuscript] 383.22-3 [noparagraph] [paragraph] [as in manuscript] 383.27 something [something of] [as in manuscript] 384.7 measure [measures] [as in manuscript] 384.9 each; [each:] [as in manuscript] 384.9 thing in short [thing, in short,] [as in manuscript] 384.17 concessions [concessions,] [as in manuscript] 384.27 compulsion, [compulsion;] [as in manuscript] 384.30 schools [schools,] [as in manuscript] 385.18 daresay [dare say] [as in manuscript] 397.11 sesson [ session ] 399.9 mind [minds] 400.11 States. [States?] 400.29 also, [also] 414.15 in, [in;] [as in TT,DN] 414.21 extensive [expensive] [as in TT,DN] 417.3 beer, [beer!] [as in DT] 421.4 2,000 [2,000!] [as in TT] 421.5 30,000. [30,000!] [as in TT] 428.24 passions [passion] [as in DN,DT] 438.6 made which has been [which has been made] [for sense] 438.22 Buccleugh [Buccleuch] [as elsewhere] 438.25 Buccleugh [Buccleuch] 438.26 Buccleugh [Buccleuch] 446.6 licenseing [licensing] 446.27 1860 [1861] 447.1 report [ report] 448.15 interest [ interests ] 448.29 1860 [1861] 451.30 powers [powers;] 455.2 1860 [1861] 457.15 comprehend [ comprehends ] 463.40 poor-law [Poor-Law] [for consistency] 465.8 district [ districts ] 466.6 Jeffrey's [Jeffreys'] 475.33 not to do so [not do so] 480.3 that it there [ that there ] 481.16 Rigsdag [ Rigsraad ] [ as in fact] 481.16 Rigsdag [Rigsraad] 489.37 one half [one-half] [for consistency] 490.10 numerous to be in [numerous in] 491.35 ot[to] 492.25 a year [a-year] [for consistency] 495.39 meets [meet] 498.33 vestryman? There [vestryman?—There] [as elsewhere]

621

622

Appendix G

503.19 municipal action [municipal election] 504.26 them, [them;] 507.13 guardians [guardians.] 514.13 up, [up] 516.3-4 they . . . men, receiving [there . . . men receiving] 519.6 same; [same";] 520.40 organization [ organization, ] 522.1 a year [a-year] 523.12 a year [a-year] 525.9 chairman [chairmen] 526.18 States [ State ] [for sense ] 526.30 vote [veto] 527.17 emigration [immigration] [for sense] 533.9 Louis Phillippe [Louis Philippe] 533.19 Louis Phillippe [Louis Philippe] 537.1 Boards [Board] 543.25 treaty [Treaty] {for consistency] 544.5 of of [of] 544.8 1866 [1865] [as in fact} 546.10 and has [has] 551.13 anterieur [anterieur] 555.16 condemn who [condemn those who] 571.14 not not [not] 599.21 Reformers; [ Reformers, ] [ incomplete revision ] 601.22 reason why [reason] [incomplete revision] 602.17 lawyers— [ lawyers, ] {for sense ] 602.39 When that [When] [incomplete revision] 603.1 reason are [reasons are] [incomplete revision] 610.26 least as [least] [incomplete revision]

Appendix H Index of Persons, and Works Cited, with Variants and Notes LIKE MOST NINETEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORS, Mill is cavalier in his approach to sources, sometimes identifying them with insufficient care, and occasionally quoting them inaccurately. This Appendix is intended to help correct these deficiencies, and to serve as an index of names and titles (which are consequently omitted in the Index proper). Included here also are (at the end of the appendix and listed alphabetically by country) references to parliamentary documents and to statute laws. The material otherwise is arranged in alphabetical order, with an entry for each person or work quoted or referred to in the text proper and in Appendices B-D and F (the page numbers in the appendices are given in italic type). Speeches, Questions, and Motions are listed in chronological order in the speaker's entry. Anonymous articles in newspapers are entered in order of date under the title of the particular newspaper. References to mythical and fictional characters are excluded. The following abbreviations indicate our sources for biographical information: ADB (Allgemeine deutsche Biographic), BP (Burke's Peerage and Baronetage}, BU (Biographic universelle), DAB (Dictionary of American Biography), DBF (Dictionnaire de biographic fran$aise), DNB (Dictionary of National Biography), DPF (Dictionnaire des parlementaires franc.ais), EB (Encyclopaedia Britannica, llth ed.), GDU (Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siecle), GE (Grande encyclopedic), MEB (Boase, Modern English Biography), PD (Parliamentary Debates), PP (Parliamentary Papers}, SC (JSM's library, Somerville College, Oxford), WWBMP (Who's Who of British Members of Parliament), WWG (Who Was Who in the Greek World), WWR (Who Was Who in the Roman World). The entries take the following form: 1. Identification of persons: birth and death dates are followed by a biographical source; if no source is indicated, available details are given in a note. 2. Identification of works: author, title, etc. in the usual bibliographic form. 3. Notes (if required) giving information about JSM's use of the source, indication if the work is in his library, Somerville College, Oxford, and any other relevant information. 4. Lists of the pages where works are quoted and referred to, and people questioned before Parliamentary Committees.

624

Appendix H

5. In the case of quotations, a list of substantive variants between Mill's text and his source, in this form: Page and line reference to the present text. Reading in the present text] Reading in the source (page reference in the source). The list of substantive variants also attempts to place quoted passages in their contexts by giving the beginnings and endings of sentences. The original wording is supplied where Mill has omitted two sentences or less; only the length of other omissions is given. There being uncertainty about the actual Classical texts used by Mill, the Loeb editions are usually cited. ACLAND, THOMAS DYKE (1809-98; DNB). Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1542-3. REFERRED TO: 84

Speech on the Public Schools Bill (23 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1929-30. REFERRED TO: 298

ADCOCK, HERBERT BURROUGHS. NOTE: Lieutenant of 2nd Battalion of 6th Regiment of Foot, A.D.C., Assistant Commissary General to the troops. REFERRED TO: 94

ADDERLEY, CHARLES BOWYER (1814-1905; DNB). Referred to: 110, 123-4 Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1526-30. REFERRED TO: 84

Speech on the Disturbances in Jamaica (31 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1785-97. REFERRED TO: 106, 110, 123-4 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (5 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1082-5. REFERRED TO: 208-9

Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 200, cols. 227-36. REFERRED TO: 383, 384

ADDISON, JOSEPH (1672-1719; DNB). The Spectator, No. 583 (20 Aug., 1714). QUOTED: 72

72.22-3 "Why should we sacrifice anything for posterity; what has posterity done for us?"] Most People are of the Humour of an old Fellow of a Colledge, who when he was pressed by the Society to come into something that might redound to the good of their Successors, grew very peevish, We are always doing, says he, something for Posterity, but I would fain see Posterity do something for us. (2)

Address of the Land and Labour League to the Working Men and Women of Great Britain and Ireland. London: printed Higginbottom, [1869]. REFERRED TO: 418-19

ALLEN, WILLIAM PHILIP (1848-67). NOTE: a Fenian hanged for his part in the Manchester rescue. REFERRED TO: 555

AMBERLEY, VISCOUNT. See John Russell, the younger. ANDERSON, ELIZABETH (nee Garrett) (1836-1917; DNB). Referred to: 159

Index of Persons and Works

625

ANDERSON, JOHN. NOTE: flogged by Adcock, q.v. REFERRED TO: 94

ANDERSON, JOHN. NOTE: a runaway slave whose extradition was demanded by the United States. REFERRED TO: 543

ANSON, AUGUSTUS HENRY ARCHIBALD (1835-77; WWBMP). Motion on Ireland—Petition on Fenianism (14 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1886-90. REFERRED TO: 188,

189

ARGYLL, DUKE OF. See George Campbell. ARLES-DUFOUR, FRANCOIS BARTH^LEMY (1797-1872; DBF). Referred to: 372 ARNOTT, NEIL (1788-1874; DNB). Referred to: c.i.2396 Athenaeum. Review of The Coal Question, 27 May, 1865, 714-15. REFERRED TO: 71

AVONMORE, BARRY (Viscount Yelverton) (1736-1805; DNB). Referred to: 111 AYRTON, ACTON SMEE (1816-86; DNB). Referred to: 230 Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (16 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 608-9. REFERRED TO: 50, 51

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 727-9. REFERRED TO: 150

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (27 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, col. 1183. REFERRED TO:

175-6

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (27 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, col. 1186. REFERRED TO: 176

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 633-4. REFERRED TO: 195

Speech on the East India Revenue Accounts (12 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 1340-55. REFERRED TO: 234

Motion on Proceedings in the Committee of Supply (21 Apr., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 1025-9. REFERRED TO: 266

Speech on the Government of India Act Amendment Bill (15 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1598. REFERRED TO: 288

Speech on the Government of India Act Amendment Bill (8 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 859. REFERRED TO: 305

Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (22 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1644-5. REFERRED TO: 318

626

Appendix H

AYTOUN, ROGER SINCLAIR (b. 1823; WWBMP). Motion on the Established Church, Ireland (7 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 1902-5. REFERRED TO: 277

BACON, FRANCIS (1561-1626; DNB). Referred to: 73 BANCROFT, GEORGE (1800-91; EB). Referred to: 33 BARRETT, MICHAEL (1841-69). NOTE: a Fenian hanged for the Clerkenwell explosion. REFERRED TO: 547, 554

BEADON, CECIL (1816-81; DNB). Referred to: 234 BEAL, JAMES (1829-9l;MEB). Questioned: 444-59 BEALES, EDMOND (1803-81; DNB). Referred to: 101-2, 104, 114, 343, 346 Letter to The Times, 2 Aug., 1866, 5. REFERRED TO: 114

BEAUFORT, DUKE OF. See Henry Charles Fitzroy Somerset. BEAUMONT, WENTWORTH BLACKETT (1829-1907; WWBMP). Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (23 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1681-2. REFERRED TO: 326

BEGGS, THOMAS (1808-96; MEB). Questioned: 471-6 BELL, ANDREW (1753-1832; DNB). Referred to: 362 BENTHAM, JEREMY (1748-1832; DNB). Letters to Lord Grenville on the Proposed Reform in the Administration of Civil Justice in Scotland (1807). In Works. Ed. John Bowring. 11 vols. Edinburgh: Tait; London: Simpkin, Marshall; Dublin: Gumming, 1843, V, 1-53. REFERRED TO: 233

BENTINCK, GEORGE AUGUSTUS FREDERICK CAVENDISH (1821-91; MEB). Motion on the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill (17 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1735-7. REFERRED TO: 291, 301

BERESFORD-HOPE, ALEXANDER JAMES BERESFORD (1820-87; WWBMP). Speech on the Sunday Lectures Bill (19 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 97-9. REFERRED TO: 290,

294

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 630-1. REFERRED TO: 195

Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (15 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 199, cols. 2021-6. REFERRED TO: 384

BIBLE. The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues: and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised by His Maiesties Speciall Comandement. Appointed to Be Read in Churches. London: Barker, 1611. REFERRED TO: 383

New Testament. Referred to: 4 Acts. Referred to: 352 Ecclesiastes. Referred to: 37 Exodus. Referred to: 38

Index of Persons and Works

627

Genesis. Referred to: 36, 354 ISttlcUl.

NOTE: the quotations are indirect. QUOTED: 248,260 1 Kings. Referred to: 428 ' L^UivV. NOTE: for the reference at 321 see also Matthew, 8:9; for that at 352 see also Matthew, 5:11-12. REFERRED TO: 321, 352 Matthew. NOTE: for the reference at 321 see also Luke 7:8; for that at 352 see also Luke, 6:22-3. QUOTED: 363 REFERRED TO: 321, 352, 356, 430 363.1 "Be ye perfect as your Father is perfect."] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (5:48)

Proverbs. Referred to: 328 II Samuel. Referred to: 428 BIDGOOD, HENRY. NOTE: member of Local Board of St. James, Westminster.

QUESTIONED: 503 BIRT, DANIEL (d. 1878).

NOTE: a draper and prominent vestryman in St.-George-the-Martyr parish. QUESTIONED: 500-3

BLACK, WILLIAM HENRY (1808-72; DNB). Questioned: 490-7 BLACKBURN, COLIN (1813-96; MEB). Charge to the Westminster Grand Jury in the Case of Governor Eyre. In "Ex-Governor Eyre," The Times, 3 June, 1868, 9-10. REFERRED TO: 302

BLACKSTONE, WILLIAM (1723-80; DNB). Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-69. NOTE: the 5th ed., 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1773) is in SC. QUOTED: 271 271.22-3 "It. . . guilty should escape . . . innocent person should suffer,"] [paragraph] Fourthly, all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously: for the law holds, that it ...

guilty persons escape, . . . innocent suffer. (IV, 352) BLACKWOOD, FREDERICK TEMPLE HAMILTON-TEMPLE (LORD DUFFERIN) (1826-1902; DNB). Mr. Mill's Plan for the Pacification of Ireland Examined. London: Murray, 1868. REFERRED TO: 258,260

BOLINGBROKE. See Henry Saint-John. The Booke of the Common Prayer and Administracion of the Sacramentes, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Churche: after the Use of the Churche of England. London: Whitchurche, 1549. NOTE: the quotation of the General Confession is indirect. QUOTED: 49 BOURKE, RICHARD SOUTHWELL (Earl of Mayo) (1822-72; DNB). Speech on the State of Ireland (10 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1353-94. REFERRED TO: 248, 250, 252, 254, 259-60, 310 BOURKE, THOMAS FRANCIS (b. 1840). NOTE: a general in the Fenian army; JSM uses the spelling Burke. REFERRED TO: 166, 167, 171, 172-3

628

Appendix H

BOUVERIE, EDWARD PLEYDELL (1818-89; DNB). Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (21 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 682-5. REFERRED TO: 300

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (6 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 722-8. REFERRED TO: 301, 302

BOWYER, GEORGE (1811-83; WWBMP). Referred to: 276 Speech on the Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1183-8. REFERRED TO: 243, 246

BRADFIELD, JOHN EDWIN (1818-88; MEB). Questioned: 572-73 BRAND, HERBERT CHARLES ALEXANDER (1839-1901; DNB). Referred to: 94 BRETT, WILLIAM BALLIOL (1817-99; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (9 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 273-80. REFERRED TO: 148-9

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 737-8. REFERRED TO: 150

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (22 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 690. REFERRED TO: 280

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (17 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1373. REFERRED TO: 312

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (17 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1380. REFERRED TO: 312

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (22 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1622-3. REFERRED TO: 316

BREWER, WILLIAM (d. 1881; MEB). Referred to: 13, 14, 15 BRIGHT, JACOB (1821-99; DNB). Speech on the State of Ireland (12 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1510-15. REFERRED TO: 248

Speech on the Married Women's Property Bill (10 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1360-4. REFERRED TO: 284

BRIGHT, JOHN (1811-89; DNB). Referred to: 201, 246 Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (14 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 472-80. REFERRED TO: 47

Speech on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Ireland (17 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 685-95. REFERRED TO: 52, 53

Speech on Presenting a Petition on Fenianism (3 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1929-31. REFERRED TO: 188-9

Index of Persons and Works

629

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (5 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1090-7. REFERRED TO: 207, 209, 210, 211

Speech on Parliamentary Reform—Representation of the People Bill (15 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1550-4. REFERRED TO: 213

BRIGHT, URSULA (n6e Mellor). NOTE: wife of Jacob Bright. REFERRED TO: 388-9

British Medical Journal. "Ladies Not Admitted," 9 Mar., 1867, 269. REFERRED TO: 160

BRODRICK, GEORGE CHARLES (1831-1903; DM3). NOTE: the copy-text gives his name as Broderick. REFERRED TO: 132,

133

BROOKS, PRESTON SMITH (1819-57; DAB). Referred to: 33 BROUGHAM, HENRY PETER (Lord) (1778-1868; DM3). Speech on the Business of Parliament (5 June, 1837; Lords), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 38, cols. 1169-84. REFERRED TO: 274

BUCCLEUCH, DUKE OF. See Walter Francis Scott. BUCKMASTER, JOHN CHARLES (1823-1908; BP). Questioned: 513-21 BULLOCH, JAMES DUNWODY (1823-1901; DAB). Referred to: 243 BULWER-LYTTON, EDWARD GEORGE EARLE LYTTON (1803-73; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (13 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1237-53. REFERRED TO: 59, 61, 62

BURDY, JOHN (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica by Oxley, q.v. REFERRED TO: 94

BURKE, EDMUND (1729-97; DNB). Referred to: 45 Mr. Burke's Speech on Presenting to the House of Commons (on the Eleventh of February, 1780) a Plan for the Better Security of the Independence of Parliament, and the O economical Reformation of the Civil and Other Establishments (1780). In Works. 8 vols. London: Dodsley [Vols. I-III], Rivington [Vols. IV-VIII], 1792-1827, II, 175-267. QUOTED: 45 5.4-5 "That system cannot be good which rests upon the heroic virtues."] I do not hesitate to say, that, that state which lays its foundation in rare and heroic virtues, will be sure to have its superstructure in the basest profligacy and corruption. (240)

Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event. In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris (1790). In Works, III, 19-321. REFERRED TO: 342 BURKE, RICHARD O'SULLIVAN (1838-1922). NOTE: an Irish-American Fenian leader, who fought for the North in the Civil War, and was imprisoned in Clerkenwell prison. REFERRED TO: 547, 554, 555 BURKE, THOMAS FRANCIS. See Bourke.

630

Appendix H

BURNS, ROBERT (1759-96; DNB). The Vision (1786). In Works. New ed. 2 pts. London: Tegg, et al.; Dublin: Milliken et a/.; Glasgow: Griffin, 1824, II, 50-7. NOTE: in SC, as was formerly The Poetical Works, 2 vols. (London: Pickering, 1830). The quotation is indirect. QUOTED: 222 BUTLER, JOSEPHINE (1828-1906; DNB). Referred to: 388-9 BUTLER, TOBY (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in the Jamaica rebellion. REFERRED TO: 95

BUXTON, CHARLES (1823-71; DNB). Speech on International Maritime Law (2 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 1437-43. REFERRED TO: 224

Speech on the Disturbances in Jamaica (31 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1763-85. REFERRED TO: 105, 106, 107

CAIRNS, HUGH MACCALMONT (Earl) (1819-85; DNB). Speech on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (3 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 2019-22. REFERRED TO: 116 CAMERON, DUGALD EDWARD. NOTE: solicitor, member of St. Pancras vestry. QUESTIONED: 505-9 CAMPBELL, GEORGE DOUGLAS (Duke of Argyll) (1823-1900; DNB). Referred to: 201, 371 CANDLISH, JOHN (1816-74; WWBMP). Motion on Parliamentary Reform—Representation of the People Bill (1 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 795-8. REFERRED TO: 317

CARDWELL, EDWARD (1813-86; DNB). "Despatch from the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell, M.P., to Lieut.-Gen. SirH.K. Storks, G.C.B., G.C.M.G.,"PP, 1866, LI, 137-43. QUOTED: 110 110.4-5 "to entrust. . . troubles,"] It remains, therefore, to decide whether the inauguration of the new Government shall be accomplished by Mr. Eyre, or whether Her Majesty shall be advised to intrust. . . troubles. (143) 110.6-8 "in new hands"... "taking... of"] They do not feel, therefore, that they should discharge their duty by advising the Crown to replace Mr. Eyre in his former Government; and they cannot doubt that, by placing the new form of Government in new hands they are taking . . . of Jamaica. (143)

CARPENTER, MARY (1807-77; DNB). Referred to: 388-9 CARREL, JEAN BAPTISTE NICOLAS ARMAND (1800-36; DBF). Referred to: 570-1 Extrait du dossier d'un prevenu de complicate morale dans Vattentat du 28 juillet. Paris: Paulin, 1835. REFERRED TO: 577

CASEY, JOSEPH THEOBALD. NOTE: a Fenian, formerly a porter; assistant to Burke; later a friend of James Joyce.

REFERRED TO: 547, 554, 555 CASTLE, WILLIAM (b. ca. 1805). NOTE: of Melton Mowbray. REFERRED TO: 314-15,333

CECIL, ROBERT ARTHUR TALBOT GASCOYNE (Lord Cranborne, later Marquis of Salisbury) (1830-1903; DNB). Referred to: 187

Index of Persons and Works

631

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (13 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 227-36. REFERRED TO: 56

Speech on Electoral Statistics (23 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 874-7. REFERRED TO: 113

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (30 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1357-9. REFERRED TO: 186-7

Speech on the East India Revenue Accounts (12 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 1378-82. REFERRED TO: 235

CHADWICK, EDWIN (1800-90; DNB). QUESTIONED: 529-35 REFERRED TO: 139, 391, 394-5 "On the New Education Bill," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, III (10 Mar., 1870), 261-84. REFERRED TO: 391-2, 393 "On the Suggestions Afforded by the Application of the Cumulative Vote, and by the Other Incidents of the School Board Elections, for Improvement in the Constitution of Municipal and Local Governing Bodies," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 227-8. REFERRED TO: 410-11

"Report on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of Great Britain; a Supplementary Report on the Results of a Special Inquiry into the Practice of Interment in Towns," PP, 1843, XII, 395-681. REFERRED TO: 139, 140, 529-JO CHAMBERLAIN, WILLIAM TANKERVILLE (1751-1802). NOTE: an Irish judge; the quotation is from Howell, State Trials, q.v. for the collation. QUOTED: 111 CHANNING, WILLIAM HENRY (1810-84; EB). Referred to: 33 CHAPMAN, HENRY SAMUEL (1803-81; DNB). Referred to: 10 CHARLES II (of England) (1630-85; DNB). Referred to: 417 CHELMSFORD, LORD. See Frederick Thesiger. CHEVALIER, MICHEL (1806-79; DBF). Referred to: 371-2 CHILDERS, HUGH CULLING EARDLEY (1827-96; DNB). Referred to: 175 CHRIST. See Jesus. CHRISTIE, WILLIAM DOUGAL (1816-74; DNB). Electoral Corruption and Its Remedies. London: National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1864. NOTE: reprinted in The Ballot, and Corruption and Expenditure at Elections (London: Macmillan, 1872), 75-103, with note saying that it was originally published in a pamphlet (2 eds.) in 1864. He there mentions JSM's approval in No. 89. REFERRED TO: 263, 265 Suggestions for an Organization for the Restraint of Corruption at Elections. London: National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 1864. REFERRED TO: 10, 11 CHURCHWARD, JOSEPH GEORGE. NOTE: magistrate for Dover. REFERRED TO: 232

632

Appendix H

CICERO, MARCUS TULLIUS (106-43 B.C.; WWR). De natura deorum. In De natura deorum, Academica (Latin and English). Trans. H. Rackham. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1933. REFERRED TO: 229

Letters to Atticus (Latin and English). Trans. E.G. Winstedt. 3 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1912. NOTE: in SC is Epistolarum ad T. Pomponicum Atticum libri xvi, in Opera, VI, 1-517. QUOTED: 158 158.28 infaece Romuli] Nam Catonem nostrum non tu amas plus quam ego; sed tamen ille optimo animo utens et summa fide nocet interdum rei publicae; dicit enim tamquam in Platonis Polyteia, non tamquam in Romuli faece sententiam. (I, 108; II, i) CLARENDON, LORD. See George William Frederick Villiers. CLARK, RICHARD. NOTE: sometimes Clarke; flogged without trial in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

CLARK, WILLIAM. NOTE: member of the vestry of St. George's in the East. QUESTIONED: 498-9

CLARKE , EDWARD GEORGE (1841 -1931; DNB). A Treatise on the Law of Extradition. With the Conventions upon the Subject Existing between England and Foreign Nations, and the Cases Decided Thereon. London: Stevens and Haynes, 1867 [1866]. QUOTED: 121

121.9-10 "Any . . . course or in furtherance of any civil . . . political movement."] On the same occasion Mr. J.S. Mill suggested that the political offences excluded from the operation of the law should be defined as, " Any . . . course of or furthering of civil. . . political commotions ."(179) CLARKE, SAMUEL (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

CLAY, JAMES (1804-73; MEB). Referred to: 84 COBDEN, RICHARD (1804-65; DNB). Referred to: 3, 4, 97, 311-3 passim Speech at Rochdale (18 Aug., 1859), The Times, 19 Aug., 1859, 7. REFERRED TO: 240

Speech at Rochdale (23 Nov., 1864). In Speeches on Questions of Public Policy. Ed. John Bright and James E. Thorold Rogers. 2 vols. London: Macmillan, 1870, II, 339-74. REFERRED TO: 418

COCKBURN, ALEXANDER JAMES EDMUND (1802-80). Charge of the Lord Chief Justice of England to the Grand Jury at the Central Criminal Court, in the Case of the Queen against Nelson and Brand. Ed. Frederick Cockburn. London: Ridgway, 1867. REFERRED TO: 203-4

COKE, EDWARD (1552-1634; DNB). NOTE: the indirect quotation has not been located. QUOTED: 276 COLERIDGE, SAMUEL TAYLOR (1772-1834; DNB). Second Lay Sermon ["Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters"] (1817). 2nd ed. In On the Constitution of Church and State, and Lay Sermons. Ed. Henry Nelson Coleridge. London: Pickering, 1839, 303-430. NOTE: inSC. REFERRED TO: 82

Index of Persons and Works

633

Colliery Guardian. "Our Supply of Coal," 27 May, 1865, 380. NOTE: a review of Jevons, The Coal Question, q.v. REFERRED TO: 71

COLLINS, JOHN RICHARD. NOTE: a chemist; member of St. Pancras vestry. QUESTIONED: 497-8 COMTE, ISIDORE AUGUSTE MARIE FRANCOIS XAVIER (1798-1857; DBF). Cours de philosophic positive. 6 vols. Paris: Bachelier, 1830-42. NOTE: in SC. REFERRED TO: 222

CONINGHAM, WILLIAM (1815-84; WWBMP). Referred to: 350-1, 352, 353, 355 CORRANCE, FREDERICK SNOWDON (1822-1906; WWBMP). Speech on the State of Ireland (12 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1477-83. REFERRED TO: 256,

257

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (18 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1445-6. REFERRED TO: 313

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (24 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1730-2. REFERRED TO: 330

CORRIE, WILLIAM (1806-81; MEB). Questioned: 443 COSTELLO, AUGUSTINE F. (d. 1909). NOTE: a Fenian rebel. REFERRED TO: 3 1 0 , 3 1 5

COWELL, SCIPIO (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

COWLEY, LORD. See Henry Richard Wellesley. COWPER-TEMPLE, WILLIAM FRANCIS (1811-88; DNB). Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 200, cols. 287-9. REFERRED TO: 382

CRANBORNE, LORD. See Robert Cecil. CRAUFURD, EDWARD HENRY JOHN (1816-87; WWBMP). Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (25 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 2173. REFERRED TO: 300

CROMWELL, OLIVER (1599-1658; DNB). Referred to: 338 CULLEN, FRANCIS JAMES. NOTE: Ensign, 1st West India Regiment. REFERRED TO: 94,218

DANGERFIELD, JOHN. NOTE: vestry clerk and solicitor for St. Martin-in-the-Fields. QUESTIONED: 486-9

DANTE ALIGHIERI (1265-1321; EB). Dante's Divine Comedy: The Inferno. A Literal Prose Translation, with the Text of the Original. Trans. John A. Carlyle. London: Chapman and Hall, 1849.

634

Appendix H

QUOTED: 280 280.11-12 "neither for God nor the enemies of God, but for themselves only."] They are mingled with that abject choir of angels, who were not rebellious, nor were faithful to God; but were for themselves. (28; Canto III, 11. 37-9) 280.13 "Speak not of them, but look and pass on!"] Let us not speak of them; but look, and pass. (29; Canto III, 1. 51)

DARLING, CHARLES HENRY (1809-70; DNB). Referred to: 109 DA VIES, SARAH EMILY (1830-1921; DNB). Referred to: 159 On the Application of Funds to the Education of Girls. London: Longmans, et a/., 1865. REFERRED TO: 159

DAWKINS, ELLEN (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

DEASY, TIMOTHY (ca. 1838-88). NOTE: an Irish-American Fenian, Civil War hero, arrested in 1867 but freed by his colleagues; escaped to United States. REFERRED TO: 555

DEER, STEPHEN. NOTE: self-confessed poacher. REFERRED TO: 199,

212

DENMAN , GEORGE (1819-96; DNB). Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (6 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 745. REFERRED TO: 303

DERBY, 14ra EARL OF. See Edward George Stanley. DERBY, 15iH EARL OF. See Edward Henry Stanley. DISRAELI, BENJAMIN (Lord Beaconsfield) (1804-81; DNB). Referred to: 10,93, 94, 108, 109,147,148, 149, 151,170,171,175, 187,197,198,237,265,279-80,336n, 338-9, 345-6, 355-6, 365 Coningsby; or, The New Generation. 3 vols. London: Colburn, 1844. REFERRED TO: 20, 57

Speech on the State of Ireland (16 Feb., 1844; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 72, cols. 1007-17. REFERRED TO: 247-8

Speech on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill (8 May, 1862; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 166, cols. 1403-28. QUOTED: 220 220.27 "bloated armaments"] Commerce, economy, and peace constitute the natural and normal policy of England, and I say this is an opportunity for the noble Lord possessing the confidence of this House, and armed with the resources of this country, to appeal to one who still in official parlance is our ally, and who might, under the noble Lord's influence, still become our friend—it is, I say, in the noble Lord's power to come to some really cordial understanding, sensible as well as cordial, between this country and France—the only two nations at present forming the councils of Europe, and to put an end to these bloated armaments which only involve States in financial embarrassment, (cols. 1425-6)

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 74-113. REFERRED TO: 93

Speech on the Redistribution of Seats Bill (14 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 874-901. REFERRED TO: 76

Index of Persons and Works

635

Speech on the Outbreak in Jamaica (19 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1066-9. REFERRED TO: 108, 110, 113

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (6 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 15-19. REFERRED TO: 146, 150

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (6 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 43-5. REFERRED TO: 147

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 720-6. QUOTED: 170 REFERRED TO: 150, 168, 170-1 170.34 "blundering hands,"] I have no doubt there are individuals who, having long tried with what I may call blundering hands to settle this question, may be exceedingly annoyed that those who have been their rivals in the enterprize have been more successful, (col. 726)

Answer to Question on Business of the House (23 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 941-2. REFERRED TO: 169

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1135-42. REFERRED TO: 175

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (30 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, col. 1362. REFERRED TO: 187

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (31 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1416-22. REFERRED TO: 210

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (24 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 466-9. REFERRED TO: 197-8

Speech on the State of Ireland (26 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 201-9. REFERRED TO: 247-8

Speech on the Parks Regulation Bill (29 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 396-8. REFERRED TO: 237, 238

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (8 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 1108-13. REFERRED TO: 232

Speech at the Corn Exchange, Edinburgh (29 Oct., 1867), The Times, 30 Oct., 1867, 5. REFERRED TO: 345,356

Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (13 Feb., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 693-702. REFERRED TO: 265

Reply to Question on Public Business (20 July, 1868; Commons), The Times, 21 July, 1868, 7. NOTE: not in PD. REFERRED TO: 316, 327

636

Appendix H

Vindication of the English Constitution, in a Letter to a Noble and Learned Lord. London: Saunders and Otley, 1835. REFERRED TO: 10

DODSON, JOHN GEORGE (1825-97; WWBMP). Statement on Motion on the Established Church, Ireland (7 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, col. 1924. REFERRED TO: 277

Statement on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (14 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1168, 1169. REFERRED TO: 308, 309 DONALDSON. NOTE: hanged without trial in Jamaica.

REFERRED TO: 94 DREW, GEORGE HENRY (1817-1906). NOTE: see Cambridge Alumni; vestry clerk, Bermondsey. QUESTIONED: 504-5

DUFFERIN, LORD. See Frederick Blackwood. DUFFY, CHARLES GAVAN (1816-1903; DNB). NOTE: the reference is inferred. REFERRED TO: 10

DUPOTY, MICHEL AUGUSTE (1797-1864; DBF). Referred to: 570 DYOTT, RICHARD (1808-91; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (25 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, col. 532. REFERRED TO: 200

East London Observer. Referred to: 492 EDWARD VII (of England) (1841-1910; DNB). Referred to: 346 EDWARDES, JUDY (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

ELTON, CHARLES ISAAC (1839-1900; MEB). A Treatise on Commons and Waste Lands, with Special Reference to the Law of Improvement. London: Wildy, 1868 [1867]. REFERRED TO: 427

EMERSON, RALPH WALDO (1803-82; DAB). Referred to: 33 EMMETT, ROBERT (1778-1803; DNB). Referred to: 166, 189 EYRE, EDWARD JOHN (1815-1901JDWS). Referred to: 91,95,109, HOn, 113n, 118,343 "Despatch to the Rt. Hon. Edward Cardwell, M.P." (20 Oct., 1865), PP, 1866, LI, 151-60. REFERRED TO: 118

FARR, WILLIAM (1807-83; DNB). Questioned: 459-67 FAWCETT, HENRY (1833-84; DNB). Referred to: 65, 350-5 passim, 427 Speech on Agricultural Women and Children (2 Apr., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1011-14. REFERRED TO: 352

Motion on the Tests Abolition (Oxford) Bill (10 Apr., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1431-2. REFERRED TO: 352

Index of Persons and Works

637

Motion on the Agricultural Children's Education Bill (14 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 559-61. REFERRED TO: 352

Speech on the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Education Bill (5 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1630-2. REFERRED TO: 352

Motion on Ireland—Trinity College Dublin (18 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 55-8. REFERRED TO: 352

Motion on University Education in Ireland (10 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1054-8. REFERRED TO: 352

Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (18 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1443-4. REFERRED TO: 313-14, 316, 326, 327, 328, 333, 343, 352, 354 Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (24 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1716. REFERRED TO: 327-8

Motion for a Select Committee on the Inclosure Act (20 Apr., 1869; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 195, cols. 1286-7. REFERRED TO: 427

"What Can Be Done for the Agricultural Labourers?" Macmillan's Magazine, XVIH(Oct. 1868), 515-25. REFERRED TO: 352

FERGUSSON, JAMES (1832-1907; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill, Scotland (8 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1252. REFERRED TO: 283

FIELD, SPENCER. NOTE: Captain in the 2nd Battalion of the 6th Regiment of Foot (Royal 1st Warwickshire); Lieutenant-Colonel 1886-88. REFERRED TO: 94

FIESCHI, GIUSEPPE MARCO (1790-1836; EB). Referred to: 577 FITZGERALD, EDWARD (Lord) (1763-98; DNB). Referred to: 166, 189 FITZGERALD, THOMAS. See Thomas Judkin-Fitzgerald. FLEMING, EDWARD (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

FLOYER, JOHN (1811-87; WWBMP). Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (24 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1723-4. REFERRED TO: 328 FORD, HENRY. NOTE: authorized by Adcock to flog men and women without trial. REFERRED TO: 94

FORSTER, CHARLES (1815-91; WWBMP). Statement on Ireland—Petition on Fenianism (14 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1893-4. REFERRED TO: 188

638

Appendix H

FORSTER, WILLIAM EDWARD (1818-86; DNB). Referred to: 392 Speech on Ireland—Petition on Fenianism (14 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1891-2. REFERRED TO: 189

Speech on the Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1178-83. REFERRED TO: 245,

245-6

Question on Public Business (20 July, 1868; Commons), The Times, 21 July, 1868, 7. NOTE: not inPD. REFERRED TO: 316, 327 Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (14 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 199, cols. 1939-51. REFERRED TO: 383,

384

Answer to Question Regarding Women on Educational Boards (16 June, 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 202, col. 259. REFERRED TO: 401

FOUQUIER-TINVILLE, ANTOINE QuENTiN (1747-95; DBF). Referred to: 109, 110 FRANCIS, MARY ANN (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN (1705-90; DAB). Letter to Benjamin Webb (22 Apr., 1784). In The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin. London: Colburn, 1817, 54. QUOTED: 73

73.8-12 "I only lend you this; if you are ever able, I expect you to repay it; but not to me: repay it to some other necessitous person, and do it under the same stipulation, that so the stream of benefits may still flow on, as long and as far as human honesty can keep it flowing."] I send you herewith a bill for ten Louis d'ors. I do not pretend to give such a sum; I only lend it to you. When you shall return to your country with a good character, you cannot fail of getting into some business that will in time enable you to pay all your debts: in that case, when you meet with another honest man in similar distress, you must pay me by lending this sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the debt by a like operation when he shall be able, and shall meet with such another opportunity. I hope it may thus go through many hands before it meets with a knave that will stop its progress. (54)

FRASER, JAMES (1818-85; DNB). Referred to: 392, 397, 400 FRASER, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS (1826-98; DNB). London Self-Governed. London: Harvey, 1866. REFERRED TO: 491

"On the Suggestions Afforded by the Application of the Cumulative Vote, and by the Other Incidents of the School Board Elections, for Improvement in the Constitution of Municipal and Local Governing Bodies," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 228-9. REFERRED TO: 410 FREEMAN, ROBERT. NOTE: member of vestry of Kensington. QUESTIONED: 493-4 FRY, THOMAS HENRY. NOTE: chairman of Holborn Valley Improvement Committee. QUESTIONED: 443 FULFORD, HENRY. NOTE: an alleged poacher. REFERRED TO: 199, 200, 212

Index of Persons and Works

639

FULLER, JOHN. NOTE: member of vestry in Islington.

QUESTIONED: 527-2 FYFE, ALEXANDER GORDON.

NOTE: a magistrate in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94

GALWAY, VISCOUNT. See George Monckton-Arundell. GARRETT, ELIZABETH. See Elizabeth Anderson. GARRISON, WILLIAM LLOYD (1805-79; DAB). Referred to: 201-3 GATHORNE-HARDY, GATHORNE (Earl of Cranbrook) (1814-1906; DNB). Referred to: 134, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 200, 333 Speech on the Metropolitan Poor Bill (8 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 185, cols. 1610-11. REFERRED TO: 139,142

Speech on the Metropolitan Poor Bill (11 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 185, cols. 1679-80. REFERRED TO: 140

Speech on the Metropolitan Poor Bill (11 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 185, cols. 1685-6. REFERRED TO: 141

Speech on the Metropolitan Poor Bill (14 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 185, cols. 1864-5. REFERRED TO: 143

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1184-5. REFERRED TO: 176

Speech on the Uniformity Act Amendment Bill (29 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1272-5. QUOTED: 192

192.23 " miserable philosophers " ] That which had been bestowed from the deep feeling of religion in the human heart was seized on for their own purposes by these miserable philosophers, who appear to him never to give anything out of their own pockets for the furtherance of their views, (col. 1275)

Speech on Martial Law—Charge of the Lord Chief Justice (2 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 908-12. REFERRED TO: 203-4, 205

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (4 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1025-6. REFERRED TO: 205-6

Speech on the Case of Fulford and Wellstead (5 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1153-7. REFERRED TO: 212

Statement on Imprisonment for Costs on a Dismissed Charge (21 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1554. REFERRED TO: 314-15

GEOGHAN, LETITIA (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

640

Appendix H

GIBSON, THOMAS MILNER (1806-84; DNB). Speech on Registration of Publications (12 June; 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1512-14. REFERRED TO: 287

GILPIN, CHARLES (1815-74; WWBMP). Referred to: 171, 272 Motion on the Capital Punishment within Prisons Bill (21 Apr., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 1033-41. REFERRED TO: 266, 268, 269, 271, 272 GLADDING, ROBERT. NOTE: bookseller resident in Whitechapel. QUESTIONED: 489-90 REFERRED TO: 493

GLADSTONE, WILLIAM EWART (1809-98; DNB). Referred to: 42,56,57-8,71,89,97,98, 170, 171, 323, 336, 338, 345, 346, 349, 354, 355, 356, 360-1, 363, 363-7, 368, 369 Speech on the Borough Franchise Bill (11 May, 1864; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 175, cols. 312-27. REFERRED TO: 58, 152, 356, 360, 365 Speech on the Church Establishment (Ireland) (28 Mar., 1865; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 178, cols. 420-34. REFERRED TO: 360,

366

Speech at Chester (1 June, 1865), The Times, 2 June, 1865, 5. NOTE: the quotation is indirect. QUOTED: 22 Speech on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Ireland (17 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 716-24. REFERRED TO: 75

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (12 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1124-49. REFERRED TO: 56

Speech on Foreign Policy (20 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1241-52. REFERRED TO: 98

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (11 Apr., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 1509-25. REFERRED TO: 145

Speech on the Established Church (Ireland) (7 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 121-31. REFERRED TO: 360,

366

Speech on the Irish Church Establishment (23 Mar. ,1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 32-3. REFERRED TO: 356, 366 Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (18 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1447-8. REFERRED TO: 354

Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 200, cols. 292-303. REFERRED TO: 382,

384

Speech on Real Estate Intestacy (16 Feb., 1871; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 204, col. 322. REFERRED TO: 418

Index of Persons and Works

641

GODWIN, WILLIAM (1756-1836; DNB). Things as They Are; or, The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794). 4th ed. 3 vols. London: Simpkin and Marshall, 1816. NOTE: in SC; the quotations are indirect. QUOTED: 34 GOLDNEY, GABRIEL (1813-1900; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (4 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, col. 1024. REFERRED TO: 205

GOLDSMID, FRANCIS HENRY (1808-78; DNB), Motion on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (6 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 2108-12. REFERRED TO: 119

GOLDSMITH, OLIVER (1728-74; DNB). Retaliation: A Poem. Including Epitaphs on the Most Distinguished Wits of This Metropolis. London: Kearsly, 1774. NOTE: the quotation is indirect. QUOTED: 73 GORDON, EDWARD STRATHEARN (1814-79; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People, Scotland (8 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1241. REFERRED TO: 282 GORDON, GEORGE WILLIAM (1818-65). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95, 118

GOSCHEN, GEORGE JOACHIM (Viscount) (1831-1907;Z)M?). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill, and the Redistribution of Seats Bill (31 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1560-72. REFERRED TO: 86 GOUGER, ROBERT (1802-46). NOTE: a leading force behind the establishment of South Australia in 1836; see also Wakefield, A Letter from Sydney. REFERRED TO: 16

GRAHAM, WILLIAM (1817-85; WWBMP). Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (Scotland) (28 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 956-9. REFERRED TO: 281

GRANT, JOHN PETER (1807-93; DNB). Referred to: 234 GRANT, WILLIAM (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

GRANT DUFF, MOUNTSTUART ELPHINSTONE (1829-1906; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (30 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1361-2. REFERRED TO: 186

GRAY, WILLIAM (d. 1865). NOTE: shot in Jamaica by Dr. Morris, q.v. REFERRED TO: 94

GREGORY, WILLIAM HENRY (1817-92; DNB). Speech on International Maritime Law (2 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 1407-20. REFERRED TO: 224

GREY, GEORGE (1799-1882; DNB). Statement on the Inclosure of Hainault Forest (25 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, col. 2012. REFERRED TO: 74

642

Appendix H

GRIFFITH, RICHARD JOHN (1784-1878; DNB). "Return of the Probable Extent of Waste Lands in Each County in Ireland." In "Report from H.M. Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in Respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland," PP, 1845, XIX, 48-52. REFERRED TO: 253

GROSVENOR, HUGH LUPUS (Marquis, later Duke of Westminster; called Earl Grosvenor) (1825-99; DNB). Referred to: 145 Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (12 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1152-63. REFERRED TO: 56, 57, 59, 60 GROSVENOR, ROBERT WELLESLEY (1834-1918; WWBMP). Referred to: 40, 54, 90, 320, 324, 325, 329, 340, 344, 347 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (12 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 87-90. REFERRED TO: 54-5

GURNEY, RUSSELL (1804-78; DNB). Referred to: 284-5 Speech on the Disturbances in Jamaica (31 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1833-6. REFERRED TO: 118

HALL, BENJAMIN (Baron Llanover) (1802-67; DNB). Referred to: 444, 461, 531 HALL, DICK (d. 1865). NOTE: hanged in Jamaica by Adcock, q. v. REFERRED TO: 94

HALL, THOMAS JAMES (1788-1876; MEB). Referred to: 116 HALLIDAY, FREDERICK JAMES (1806-91; DNB). Referred to: 234 HAMMOND, EDMUND (Lord) (1802-90; DNB). Questioned: 542-8, 561-3 HARE, THOMAS (1806-91; DNB). QUESTIONED: 477-85 REFERRED TO: 181, 186, 409-11 passim

Evidence Given before the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, PP, 1866, XIII, 378-91. REFERRED TO: 422

"Ideal of a Local Government for the Metropolis," MacMillan's Magazine, VII (Apr. 1863), 441-7. REFERRED TO: 477-8, 483-4 "Corrupt and Perniscious Influences at Elections," Morning Star, 11 Apr., 1865, 3. REFERRED TO: 12-13,477-5

"On the Suggestions Afforded by the Application of the Cumulative Vote, and by the Other Incidents of the School Board Elections, for Improvement in the Constitution of Municipal and Local Governing Bodies," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, IV (1870-71), 215-26. REFERRED TO: 409-11 passim A Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal. London: Longman, et al., 1859. NOTE: the 3rd ed., 1865, inscribed "From the Author," is in SC. REFERRED TO: 37, 181, 207-8, 239-42

Usque ad coelum: Thoughts on the Dwellings of the People, Charitable Estates, Improvements and Local Government in the Metropolis. London: Low, 1862. REFERRED TO: 477

Index of Persons and Works

643

HARRISON , FREDERIC (1831 -1923; DNB). Referred to: 134 HAY , WILLIAM MONTAGU (1826-1911; WWBMP). Speech on the Government of India Act Amendment Bill (22 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1870-6. REFERRED TO: 296-7

HEILBRONN, ALEXANDER. NOTE: extradited from United States on a charge of forgery; tried and acquitted. REFERRED TO: 563

HENLEY, JOSEPH WARNER (1793-1884; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 634-5. REFERRED TO: 194,

196

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (4 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1023-4. REFERRED TO: 205

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (13 Feb., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 714-15. REFERRED TO: 302

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (24 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1727-8. REFERRED TO: 327

HENRY, THOMAS (1807-76; DNB). QUESTIONED: 548-58 REFERRED TO: 560, 561, 562 HESLOP, ALEXANDER (1817-79; MEB). NOTE: PD spells his name Hislop. REFERRED TO: 94

HIBBERT, JOHN TOMLINSON (1824-1908; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (9 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 267-73. REFERRED TO: 146

HICKSON, WILLIAM EDWARD (1803-70; DNB). Questioned: 538-40 "Hand-Loom Weavers. Copy of Report by Mr. Hickson, on the Condition of the Hand-Loom Weavers (11 Aug., 1840), PP, 1840, XXIV, 659-717. REFERRED TO: 539

HIERON I (of Syracuse) (Tyrant: 478-467/6 B.C.; WWG). NOTE: JSM calls him Hiero. REFERRED TO: 229

HILL, FREDERIC (1803-96; MEB). Referred to: 411 HILL, WILLIAM (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94

HINXMAN, EDWARD (b. 1810). NOTE: a magistrate. REFERRED TO: 199, 200, 212-13 HOARE, HENRY (1807-66; MEB). Referred to: 486 HODGKINSON, GROSVENOR (1818-81; WWBMP). Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 708-12. REFERRED TO: 150, 151, 168, 170, 175 HOGG, JAMES MACNAUGHTEN MCGAREL (1823-90; DNB). Speech on the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill (17 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1738-9. REFERRED TO: 30

644

Appendix H

HOLDSWORTH, JOSEPH. On the Extension of the English Coal-fields beneath the Secondary Formations of the Midland Counties. Also, Does Coal Exist near London? Geologically Considered. London: Middleton, 1866. REFERRED TO: 71

HOLE, LEWIS BLYTH (1836-91). NOTE: a soldier who helped quell the Jamaica Rebellion. REFERRED TO: 94

HOLLAND, HENRY THURSTON (Viscount Knutsford) (1825-1914; DNB). Questioned: 558-61, 571 HOPE, ALEXANDER BERESFORD. See Alexander Beresford-Hope. HORACE (Quintus HoratiusFlaccus) (65-8B.C.; WWR). Epistles. InSatires, Epistles, Ars poetica (Latin and English). Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1929, 248-440. QUOTED: 67 67.10 habes . . . ureris] "nee furtum feci nee fugi," si mihi dicat / servus, "habes . . . ureris," aio. (354; I, xvi, 46-7) HORSMAN, EDWARD (1807-76; DNB). Referred to: 56 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (12 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 90-114. REFERRED TO: 56

Speech on the State of Ireland (12 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1466-77. REFERRED TO: 258

HORTON, GEORGE.

NOTE: a clerk in the General Register Office. QUESTIONED: 467-71 REFERRED TO: 462 The Municipal Government of the Metropolis. By a Londoner. London: Hardwicke, 1865. REFERRED TO: 460-2, 467-9

HOTHAM, BEAUMONT (1794-1870; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, col. 632. REFERRED TO: 196

HOWARD, HENRY FITZALAN- (Duke of Norfolk) (1847-1917; DNB). Referred to: 438-9 HOWELL, THOMAS BAYLY (1768-1815; DNB), and THOMAS JONES HOWELL (d. 1858; DNB), comps. A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason. 34 vols. London: Longman, etal., 1809-28. QUOTED: 111 111.15-16 In summing-up, Justice Chamberlain, with whom Lord Yelverton agreed, said:—"The jury] His lordship said, that the jury (XXVII, col. 765) 111.19 They expected] No; it expected (XXVII, col. 765) 111.22 now] then (XXVII, col. 765) 111.23 and existing] and the existing (XXVII, col. 765) 111.25 provides] proved (XXVII, col. 765) HUBBARD, JOHN GELLIBRAND (1805-89; DNB). "Draft Report Proposed by the Chairman" and "Memorandum Submitted by the Chairman," Appendix 1 to the "Report from the Select Committee on Income and Property Tax," PP, 1861, VII, 303-18. REFERRED TO: 43

Index of Persons and Works

645

HUME, JOSEPH (1777-1855; DNB). Referred to: 220 Speech on Spain—Report on the Address (5 Feb., 1836; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 31, cols. 126-9. REFERRED TO: 220

HUNT, GEORGE WARD (1825-77; DNB). Speech on Supply—Post Office Service Estimates (7 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 834. REFERRED TO: 304-5

HUSKISSON, WILLIAM (1770-1830; DNB). Referred to: 97 HYDE, EDWARD (1609-74; DNB) (Earl of Clarendon). The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon, Lord High Chancellor of England, and Chancellor of the University of Oxford. 2 vols. in 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1759. REFERRED TO: 362

ILIFF, WILLIAM TIFFIN. NOTE: medical officer of health to Newington vestry. QUESTIONED: 499-500 IM-THURN, EDUARD (1813-77). Der Kanton Schaffhausen. Vol. XII of Historischgeographisch-statistischesGemdldederSchweiz. 18 vols. St. Gallen and Berne: Huber, 1834-46. NOTE: see Dictionnaire historique et blographique de la Suisse. The quotation is taken from JSM's Principles of Political Economy, q.v. QUOTED: 259 259.27 "superhuman"] [translatedfrom:] [paragraph] Ausser dem fast iibermenschlichen Fleisse der Landbauer war bis zu Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts an den ganzen Landwirthschaft nichts zu riihmen. (53) The Irishman: "George Francis Train's Levees," 18 July, 1868, 37. REFERRED TO: 315

JAMES, EDWARD (1807-67; DNB). NOTE: see also The Times, 16 Jan., 1866. REFERRED TO: 111

JEBB, WILLIAM FRANCIS (1828-90; MEB). Questioned: 499 JEFFREYS, JULIUS (1801-77; DNB). Referred to: 466 JERVIS, JOHN (1802-56; DNB). Referred to: 333 JESUS. Referred to: 362-3 JEVONS, WILLIAM STANLEY (1835-82; DNB). The Coal Question: An Enquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines. London and Cambridge: Macmillan, 1865. REFERRED TO: 70-1

JOLIFFE, WILLIAM GEORGE HYLTON (1800-76; DNB). Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (16 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 611-12. NOTE: JSM is mistaken in attributing the argument to "the Member for Droitwich," Sir John Pakington, although he did participate in the debate; it was Joliffe (M.P. for Petersfield), however, who referred to the "article of milk," saying "A man who now proposed to invest capital in a dairy farm would be regarded as mad." REFERRED TO: 51

JONES, J. "Our Future Coal-fields," Intellectual Observer, VIII (Jan. 1866), 435-9. REFERRED TO: 71

646

Appendix H

JONES, LLOYD (1811-86; DNB). Referred to: 9 Speech at the Meeting of the London Association for the Promotion of Cooperation (28 Mar., 1864), TheReasoner, XXVIII (1 May, 1864), 116. REFERRED TO: 9

JONES, THOMAS MASON. NOTE: middle-class Irish reformer who served on the Committee of the Reform League as well as with the Reform Union. REFERRED TO: 174

JUDKIN-FlTZGERALD, THOMAS (d. 1810;ZWfl). NOTE: JSM refers to him as Fitzgerald. REFERRED TO: 111

KARSLAKE, EDWARD KENT (1820-92; MEB). Speech on the Married Women's Property Bill (10 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1355-8. REFERRED TO: 284, 286

KARSLAKE, JOHN BURGESS (1821-81; DNB). Referred to: 218, 285 Speech on Parliamentary Reform—Representation of the People Bill (20 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 829-33. REFERRED TO: 162

Speech on the Married Women's Property Bill (10 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1367-70. REFERRED TO: 285, 286

Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (14 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1177. REFERRED TO: 310

KELLAND, PHILIP (1808-79; DNB). Referred to: 407, 408 KELLY, FITZROY (1796-1880; DNB). Referred to: 124 Resolution on the Malt Duty (17 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1509-19. REFERRED TO: 72

KELLY, THOMAS J. (1833-1907). NOTE: an Irish-American Fenian; arrested, then freed by his fellow Fenians, he escaped to New York. REFERRED TO: 555

KINNAIRD , ARTHUR FITZGERALD (1814-87; DNB). Speech on the Sunday Lectures Bill (19 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 95-7. QUOTED: 193 REFERRED TO: 192-3 193.1 "paid singers"] He himself went, and he found paid singers dressed in evening costume, the proceedings having much more of the character of a theatrical representation than of a scientific lecture. (96) KINNEAR, JOHN BOYD (1828-1920; WWBMP). Speech on Proportional Representation (29 Feb., 1868), Morning Star, 2 Mar., 1868, 2. REFERRED TO: 239, 240, 241

KNIGHTLEY, RAINALD (1819-95; MEB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (28 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1320-1. REFERRED TO: 90

KNONAU. See Meyer von Knonau.

Index of Persons and Works

647

KNOX, WILLIAM STUART (1826-1900; MEB). Question on the Riots in Hyde Park (2 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, col. 1905. REFERRED TO: 114

Question on the Meeting in the Tea-Room (2 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, col. 769. REFERRED TO: 219

LABOUCHERE, HENRY Du PRE" (1831-1912; DNB). Motion on the Public Schools Bill (16 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1654. REFERRED TO: 290

LAFAYETTE, MARIE JOSEPH GILBERT DU MOTIER, MARQUIS DE (1757-1834; GDU). Referred to: 132 LAING, SAMUEL (1812-97; DNB}. Speech on International Maritime Law (2 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 1448-55. REFERRED TO: 224

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (13 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1306-21. REFERRED TO: 208

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (20 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 838-40. REFERRED TO: 161

Speech on the East India Revenue Accounts (12 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 1363-72. REFERRED TO: 233 LAMIRANDE, SUREAU. NOTE: extradited from England September 1866.

REFERRED TO: 228, 562 LANCASTER, JOSEPH (1778-1838; DNB).

NOTE: the reference is to his system of education. REFERRED TO: 362

LANDRAN, JOHN (d. 1865). NOTE: hanged by Adcock. REFERRED TO: 94

LANKESTER, EDWIN (1814-74; MEB). Referred to: 451, 489 LARKIN, MICHAEL (d. 1867). NOTE: Fenian hanged for the Manchester affair. REFERRED TO: 555 LA TOUR D'AUVERGNE-LAURAGUAIS, HENRI GODFROI BERNARD ALPHONSE, PRINCE DE

(1823-71; GDU). Letter to the Earl of Clarendon (14 Dec., 1865). In "Correspondence Respecting the Extradition Treaty with France," PP, 1866, LXXVI, 373-4. REFERRED TO:

544

LAVERGNE, Louis GABRIEL LfioNCE GUILHAUD DE (1809-80; GDU). Economic rurale de la France depuis 1789 (1860). 2nd ed. Paris: Guillaurnin, 1861. REFERRED TO: 259-60

LAWRENCE, HENRY (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

LAWRENCE, JOHN (d. 1865). NOTE: hanged by Adcock. REFERRED TO: 94

648

Appendix H

LA YARD, AUSTEN HENRY (1817-94; DNB). Speech on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (6 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 976-8. REFERRED TO: 228

LAYTON, JOHN. NOTE: vestry clerk of Islington. QUESTIONED: 509-12 REFERRED TO: 513

LEDRU ROLLIN, ALEXANDRE AUGUSTE (1807-74; GDU). Referred to: 570 LEEMAN, GEORGE (1809-82; WWBMP). Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (23 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1684-5. REFERRED TO: 326

LEWIS, GEORGE CORNEWALL (1806-63; DNB). Referred to: 275 LEWIS, JOHN HARVEY (1814-88; WWBMP). Speech on the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Bill (27 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 697-8. REFERRED TO: 294

Speech on the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill (17 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1737-8. REFERRED TO: 301

Motion on the Poor Relief Bill (27 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1885. REFERRED TO: 334

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM (1809-65; DAB). Emancipation Proclamation. Washington: n.p., 1863. NOTE: in effect 1 January, 1863. REFERRED TO: 202

LIVINGSTON, JASPER HALL (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

LLANOVER, LORD. See Benjamin Hall. LOCKE, JOHN (1632-1704; DNB). Referred to: 73 LOCKE, JOHN (1805-80; WWBMP). Speech on the Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment Bill (26 Feb., 1862; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 165, cols. 747-9. REFERRED TO: 230

Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1530-3. REFERRED TO: 84

LOPES , LOPES MASSEY (1818-1908; DNB). Motion on Local Charges on Real Property (12 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 136-45. REFERRED TO: 277,

279

Louis PHILIPPE (of France) (1773-1850; GDU). Referred to: 533 LOWE, ROBERT (1811-92; DNB). Referred to: 56, 63, 67-8, 74, 87, 249 Speech of Resignation (18 Apr., 1864), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 174, cols. 1203-11. REFERRED TO: 68

Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (14 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 483-8. REFERRED TO: 47, 48

Index of Persons and Works

649

Speech on the Cattle Diseases Bill (16 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 618-20. QUOTED: 52 REFERRED TO: 51-2 52.4-6 "Is it not absurd that because a man or any of his family is not mad, he should object to being taxed for a lunatic asylum?"] If you claim exemption, you might as well say that because a gentleman and his family are free from madness, he ought not to be taxed to pay for a lunatic asylum, (col. 620) Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (13 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 141-64. REFERRED TO: 56, 63, 67, 87

Speech on the Tenure and Improvement of Land Bill, Ireland (17 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1077-87. REFERRED TO: 79, 80

Speech on the Representation of the People Bill, and the Redistribution of Seats Bill (31 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1625-50. REFERRED TO: 87

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (4 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1036-42. REFERRED TO: 207, 208, 211

Speech on the State of Ireland (12 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1483-1503. REFERRED TO: 247, 249, 255-6, 257, 258, 259 Speech on the Married Women's Property Bill (10 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1364-7. REFERRED TO: 284

LOWELL, JAMES RUSSELL (1819-91; DAB). Referred to: 33 LOWTHER, JAMES (1840-1904; DNB). Motion on the Public Schools Bill (23 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1926. REFERRED TO: 298

LOYD, SAMUEL JONES (Baron Overstone) (1796-1883; DNB). Referred to: 486 LUCAS, MARGARET (nee Bright) (1818-90; DNB). Referred to: 388-9 LUCAS, SAMUEL (1811-65; DNB). Referred to: 5 LUKE, HENRY FRANCIS. NOTE: Captain in 1 st West India Regiment; participated in court-martial in Jamaica (1865). PD calls him Lake. REFERRED TO: 94 MCCAFFERTY, JOHN (b. 1838).

NOTE: a Fenian from Ohio, fought for the South in the Civil War, and led the Fenian attack on Chester Castle. REFERRED TO: 166, 167, 171, 172-3 McCALL, JOHN (alias George McQuarry McCall). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica by Culler and Morris without trial. REFERRED TO: 94

MCCLURE, JOHN.

NOTE: a Fenian whose death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. REFERRED TO: 166, 167, 171, 172-3

650

Appendix H

MACINTOSH, GEORGE (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

MCKENZIE, JAMES (d. 1865). NOTE: hanged by Adcock. REFERRED TO: 94

McKERROW, WILLIAM (1803-78; DNB). Referred to: 5 MCLAREN, AGNES (1837-1913). NOTE: daughter of Duncan McLaren. REFERRED TO: 408-9

MCLAREN, DUNCAN (1800-86; DNB). Referred to: 408-9 Speech on Local Charges on Real Property (12 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 145-7. REFERRED TO: 279

Speech on Supply—Post Office (7 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 832-3. REFERRED TO: 304

MCLAREN, PRISCILLA (ne'e Bright) (1814-1906). NOTE: sister of John and Jacob Bright. REFERRED TO: 388-9,408-9

MAINE, HENRY JAMES SUMNER (1822-88; DNB). Village-Communities in the East and West. Six Lectures Delivered at Oxford. London: Murray, 1871. REFERRED TO: 427

MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS (121-180 A.D.; WWR). Communings with Himself [Meditations] (Greek and English). Trans. C.R. Haines. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1930. NOTE: a Greek and Latin ed. (Glasgow: Foulis, 1744) is in SC. REFERRED TO: 251

MARTIN DU NORD, NICOLAS FERDINAND MARIE Louis JOSEPH (1790-1847; GDU). Referred to: 568 MARTINEAU, FRANCES BAILEY. NOTE: concerned with repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts. REFERRED TO: 388-9

MARTINEAU, HARRIET (1802-76; DNB). Referred to: 388-9 MASSON, DAVID (1822-1907; DNB). Referred to: 407 MAY, THOMAS ERSKINE. A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (1844). Ed. Gilbert Campion. 14th ed. London: Butterworth, [1946]. NOTE: this ed. used for ease of reference. REFERRED TO: 108

MAYNE, RICHARD (1796-1868; DNB). Referred to: 114 Medical Times and Gazette: "Female Candidates at Apothecaries' Hall," 2 Mar., 1867, 229. REFERRED TO: 160 MEYER VON KNONAU, GEROLD (1804-58). NOTE: historian and geographer. REFERRED TO: 259

MILES, TOMMY (alias Tom Bell). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica by Cullen and Morris without trial. REFERRED TO: 94

Index of Persons and Works

651

MILL, JAMES (1773-1836; DNB). Referred to: 15 MILL, JOHN STUART. "The Admission of Women to the Electoral Franchise." NOTE: No. 55; the references are prospective. REFERRED TO: 143, 145

"The Cattle Diseases Bill [ 1 ]." NOTE: No. 12. REFERRED TO: 50, 51-2

Considerations on Representative Government. London: Longman, etal., 1861. InCW, XIX, 371-577. NOTE: the People's Ed. (London: Longman, et al., 1865) is in SC.

REFERRED TO: 30, 84, 85, 331, 492 "The Disturbances in Jamaica [1]." NOTE: No. 26. REFERRED TO: 108

"Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [7]." NOTE: No. 116. REFERRED TO: 307, 317

"Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections [10]." NOTE: No. 123. REFERRED TO: 308

England and Ireland. London: Longmans, etal., 1868. In CW, VI, 505-32. REFERRED TO: 254-61 passim

"A Few Words on Non-intervention," Eraser's Magazine, LX (Dec. 1859), 766-76. In CW, XXI, 109-24. REFERRED TO: 17

Letter to James Seal (7 Mar., 1865), Daily News, 23 Mar., 1865, 1. In CW, XVI, 1005-7. REFERRED TO: 19

"Local Charges on Real Property." NOTE: No. 95. REFERRED TO: 313

"The Metropolitan Poor Bill [2]." NOTE: No. 47. REFERRED TO: 139

"The Municipal Corporations Bill." NOTE: No. 56. REFERRED TO: 230

"Personal Representation." NOTE: No. 60. REFERRED TO: 207

Principles of Political Economy, with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy. 2 vols. London: Parker, 1848. In CW, II-ffl. NOTE: the quotations at 81, 418, and 425 are indirect; that at 259 is a translation of words of Edward Im-Thurn, q.v. QUOTED: 30,81,259,418,425 REFERRED TO: 36, 259 30.26 "'The] This (II, 109) 259.27 "superhuman"] [paragraph] The reader new to the subject must have been struck with the powerful impression made upon all the witnesses to whom I have referred, by what a Swiss statistical writer calls the "almost superhuman industry" of peasant proprietors. * [footnote omitted] (CW, II, 278)

652

Appendix H

Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association, with an Explanatory Statement by John Stuart Mill. London: Longmans, et al., 1871. In CW, V, 687-95. REFERRED TO: 416-31 passim "Reform of Parliament." NOTE: No. 58. REFERRED TO: 59

"Reorganization of the Reform Party," London and Westminster Review, XXXII (Apr. 1839), 475-508. In CW, VI, 465-95. REFERRED TO: 29

"Representation of the People [2]." NOTE: No. 16. REFERRED TO: 69, 70

Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform. London: Parker, 1859. In CW, XIX, 311-39. REFERRED TO: 35, 84

"The Westminster Election of 1865 [2]." NOTE: No. 6. REFERRED TO: 28

MILTON, JOHN (1608-74; DNB). Referred to: 73 MITCHEL , JOHN (1815-75; DNB). The History of Ireland, from the Treaty of Limerick to the Present Time; Being a Continuation of the History of the Abbe Macgeoghegan. New York: Sadlier, 1868. REFERRED TO: 249

MITCHELL, ALEXANDER (1831-73; MEB). Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (26 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 296-8. REFERRED TO: 262

MITCHELL, CHARLES (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica by Lieutenant Adcock. REFERRED TO: 94 MITCHELL, HENRY SADLER. NOTE: vestry clerk of Whitechapel. QUESTIONED: 491-3 MONCKTON-ARUNDELL, GEORGE EDWARD ARUNDELL (Viscount Galway) (1805-76; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (20 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 841-2. REFERRED TO: 161

MONTAGU, ROBERT (Lord) (1825-1902; DNB). Referred to: 206, 332 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (13 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1282-93. REFERRED TO: 208

Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1488-93. REFERRED TO: 84

Speech on Supply—Civil Service Estimates (29 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 353-61. REFERRED TO: 217-18 MOODY, CHARLES. NOTE: a confessed poacher. REFERRED TO: 199, 212

Index of Persons and Works

653

MORRIS, HENRY (b. 1837). NOTE: staff assistant surgeon to 1st West India Regiment. REFERRED TO: 94, 218

MORRISON, WALTER (1836-1921; WWBMP). Speech on Proportional Representation (29 Feb., 1868), Morning Star, 2 Mar., 1868, 2. REFERRED TO: 242

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP (1814-77; EB). Referred to: 33 MOURAVIEF, MIKHAIL NIKOLAEVICH (1796-1866). NOTE: Russian general; his name now transliterated as Murav'ev. REFERRED TO: 173 MULLENS, RICHARD. NOTE: solicitor to the Association of Bankers. QUESTIONED: 563 MULLER, FRANZ (1840-64). NOTE: a German tailor living in London; tried and convicted for murder. REFERRED TO: 556

MULLINS, JOHN (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94

MUNDELLA, ANTHONY JOHN (1825-97; DNB). Speech on the Elementary Education Bill (18 Mar., 1870; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 200, cols. 236-44. REFERRED TO: 383

NAPOLEON I (1768-1821; GDU). Referred to: 225 Decret imperial, en notre palais royal de Milan, le 17 decembre, 1807, Gazette Nationale, ouLeMoniteur Vniversel, 25 Dec., 1807, 1387. REFERRED TO: 225

NAPOLEON III (of France) (1808-73; GDU). Referred to: 117, 216, 546, 551, 568 NARVAEZ, RAMON MARIA (1800-68; EB). Referred to: 173 NASSE, ERWIN (1829-90). On the Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages, and Inclosures of the Sixteenth Century in England (in German, 1869). Trans. H. A. Ouvry. London: Macmillan, 1871. REFERRED TO: 427

NAVILLE, JULES ERNEST (1816-1909; GE). Referred to: 186 NEATE, CHARLES (1806-79; DNB). Motion on the Malt Duty—Resolution (17 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1521-4. REFERRED TO: 70

Speech on the Meetings in Royal Parks Bill (22 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1882-4. REFERRED TO: 215

Speech on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (6 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 978-80. REFERRED TO: 228

Motion on the State of Ireland (10 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1314-23. REFERRED TO: 248, 261

Speech on the Capital Punishment within Prisons Bill (21 Apr., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, cols. 1046-7. REFERRED TO: 272

654

Appendix H

NELSON, ALEXANDER ABERCROMBY (1816-93; DNB). Referred to: 94-5 "NEVIN, MR." NOTE: a fictitious character, invented by George Francis Train, q.v. REFERRED TO: 315

NEWDEGATE, CHARLES NEWDIGATE (1816-87; DNB). Speech on the Established Church, Ireland (7 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 191, col. 1928. REFERRED TO: 277

NEWTON, ISAAC (1642-1727; DNB). Referred to: 73 NIGHTINGALE, FLORENCE (1820-1910; DNB). Referred to: 388-9 NORFOLK, DUKE OF. See Henry FitzAlan-Howard. NORTHCOTE, STAFFORD HENRY (Earl of Iddesleigh) (1818-87; DNB). NOTE: see also, under PP, "Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service," 1854. REFERRED TO: 35, 88, 233, 300

Motion on the Representation of the People Bill (14 June, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, col. 449. REFERRED TO: 88

Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1533-42. REFERRED TO: 84

Speech on the East India Revenue Accounts (12 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 1357-63. REFERRED TO: 233

Motion on the Municipal Corporations (Metropolis) Bill (17 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 1740. REFERRED TO: 300-1

NORTHUMBERLAND, DUKE OF. See George Percy. NUGENT, FULKE SOUTHWELL GREVILLE (1821-83; WWBMP). Speech on the Tenure and Improvement of Land Bill, Ireland (30 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 225-6. REFERRED TO: 82

O'BRIEN, MICHAEL (d. 1867). NOTE: an Irish-American Fenian hanged for his part in the Manchester rescue. REFERRED TO: 555

O'CONNOR, LUKE SMYTHE (1806-73; DNB). Referred to: 94 ODGER, GEORGE (1820-77; DNB). Referred to: 335, 343 O'DONOGHUE, DANIEL (d. 1889; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (27 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 34-42. REFERRED TO: 82-3

OSBORNE, RALPH BERNAL (1811-82; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill, Scotland (28 May, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 964. REFERRED TO: 281

OVERSTONE, LORD. See Samuel Loyd. OXLEY, CHARLES LYSTEN. NOTE: naval officer, Lieutenant of the "Wolverine." REFERRED TO: 94

PAGET, CLARENCE EDWARD (1811-95; WWBMP). Speech on Supply—Navy Estimates (1 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, col. 1366. REFERRED TO: 120

Index of Persons and Works

655

PAKINGTON, JOHN SOMERSET (1799-1880; DNB). NOTE: the reference at 51 is mistaken; see William Joliffe. REFERRED TO: 35, 51, 84, 85, 284 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (31 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1572-90. REFERRED TO: 84, 85

PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM (1796-1881; EB). Referred to: 33 PALMERSTON, LORD. See Henry John Temple. PARKER, THEODORE (1810-60; EB). Referred to: 33 PARRY, CLIVE, ed. The Consolidated Treaty Series. 231 vols. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1969. NOTE: this ed. used for ease of reference to miscellaneous treaties. REFERRED TO: 371, 543, 545, 551, 552, 553, 555, 557 PATTERSON, HENRY (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94 PAYNE, RICHARD (1810-90). NOTE: Vicar of Downton. REFERRED TO: 199, 200

PEARS, EDWIN (1835-1919; DNB). "The Elementary Education Bill," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, III (7 Apr., 1870), 345-6. REFERRED TO: 393

PEEL, LAWRENCE (1799-1884; DNB). Referred to: 284 PEEL, ROBERT (1788-1850; DNB). Referred to: 97, 345 PERCY, GEORGE (Duke of Northumberland) (1778-1867; BP). Referred to: 438-9 PERRY, THOMAS ERSKINE (1806-82; DNB). Speech on the Married Women's Property Bill (14 May, 1857; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 145, cols. 266-74. REFERRED TO: 284 PHILLIPS, ALEXANDER. NOTE: flogged without trial in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

PICARD, ADOLPH. NOTE: a French clerk of Guibillier, France, assignee in the bankruptcy of Victor Widermann. REFERRED TO: 548

PILGRIM, GEORGE. NOTE: a gamekeeper. REFERRED TO: 199, 200, 212 PILKINGTON, JAMES (1804-90; MEB). Referred to: 272 PLATO (427-347 B.C.; WWG). Apology. InEuthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (Greek and English). Trans. H.N. Fowler. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914, 60-145. REFERRED TO: 76

Protagoras. In Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus (Greek and English). Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914, 92-256. REFERRED TO: 76

Republic (Greek and English). Trans. Paul Shorey. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946. REFERRED TO: 34

656

Appendix H

PLINY (the Elder) (ca. 23-79 A.D.; WWR). Natural History (Latin and English). Trans. H. Rackham, et al., 10 vols. London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938-52. QUOTED: 160, 269 160.1 instar omnium] hi mercantes id a conterminis vehunt per maria vasta ratibus quas neque gubernacula regant neque remi impellant vel trahant vela, non ratio ulla adiuvet: omnium instar ibi sunt homo tantum et audacia. (IV, 62-4; XII, xli, 87) 269.30-1 brutum fulmen] sed haec omnia esse fortuita; hinc bruta fulmina et vana, ut quae nulla veniant ratione naturae, his percuti montes, his maria, omnesque alios inritos iactus; ilia vero fatidica ex alto, statisque de causis et ex suis venire sideribus. (I, 254; II, xliii, 113) POTTER, THOMAS BAYLEY (1817-98; MEB). Referred to: 128

POWELL, FRANCIS SHARP (1827-1911; WWBMP). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 730-2. REFERRED TO: 150

Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association. See under John Stuart Mill. PULLING, ALEXANDER (1813-95; DNB). Referred to: 300 READ, CLARE SEWELL (1826-1905; DNB). Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (24 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1729. REFERRED TO: 327

RENDLE, WILLIAM (1811-93; DNB). Questioned: 540-2 Fever in London: Its Social and Sanitary Lessons. London: Metropolitan Sanitary Association, 1866. REFERRED TO: 540,541-2 London Vestries, and Their Sanitary Work: Are They Willing and Able to Do It? London: Churchill, 1865. REFERRED TO: 540,

541

ROBESPIERRE, MAXIMILIEN FRANCOIS MARIE ISIDORE DE (1758-94; GDU). Referred to: 109-10 ROEBUCK, JOHN ARTHUR (1801-79; DNB). Referred to: 16 Speech on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, Ireland (17 Feb., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 695-8. REFERRED TO: 54

ROLT, JOHN (1804-71; DNB). Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (17 May, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 735-6. REFERRED TO: 150

ROSE, JAMES ANDERSON (1819-90; MEB). Referred to: 343 ROSE, PHILIP (1816-83; MEB). NOTE: mistakenly referred to in No. 134, where James Anderson Rose (q.v.) is intended. REFERRED TO: 264, 307

"Evidence." In "Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords, Appointed to Inquire What Would Be the Probable Increase of the Number of Electors in the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales from a Reduction of the Franchise," Sessional Papers of the House of Lords, 1860,1, 115-40. QUOTED: 264 REFERRED TO: 264, 343 264.19-20 "We . . . return our municipal candidate, and we shall therefore be] [paragraph] It is almost laid down as an axiom by local agents who say, "We . . . return our man for the municipal council, and we shall be (130)

Index of Persons and Works

657

"Evidence Taken before the Select Committee on the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act," PP, 1860, X, 111-33. QUOTED: 307 REFERRED TO: 343 307.27 is the] is in the (112) ROUNDELL, CHARLES SAVILLE (1827-1906; WWBMP). Referred to: 132-3 RUSSELL, JOHN (Lord) (1792-1878; DNB). Referred to: 57, 201 Speech on the Address in Answer to the Queen's Speech (20 Nov., 1837; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 39, cols. 65-73. REFERRED TO: 57

RUSSELL, JOHN (Lord Amberley) (1842-76; DNB}. Motion on the Sunday Lectures Bill (19 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 89-95. REFERRED TO:

190-1

Motion on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (17 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1370. REFERRED TO: 311

SALISBURY, MARQUIS OF. See Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil. SALOMONS, DAVID (1797-1873; DNB). Referred to: 367 SALTER, JONATHAN. NOTE: Chairman of Public Works Committee, St. Pancras vestry. QUESTIONED: 494-7 SANDFORD, GEORGE MONTAGU WARREN (1821-79;M£fl). Speech on the Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1188-90. REFERRED TO: 243, 244, 246 SAVAGE, JOHN (d. 1875; MEB). Questioned: 535-8 SCHREIBER, CHARLES (1826-84; WWBMP). Speech on the Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill (22 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 1649-50. REFERRED TO: 331, 343

SCOTT, BENJAMIN (1814-92; DNB). Questioned: 443-4 SCOTT, WALTER FRANCIS (Duke of Buccleuch) (1806-84; BP). Referred to: 438, 459 SEELY, CHARLES (1803-87; WWBMP). Speech on Supply—Navy Estimates (1 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 1361-2. REFERRED TO: 119-20

SELWYN, CHARLES JASPER (1813-69; DNB). Speech on the Bankruptcy Acts Repeal Bill (4 June, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 187, cols. 1565-6. REFERRED TO:

187

SEWARD, WILLIAM HENRY (1801-72; DAB). "Despatch to Mr. Adams" (27 Aug., 1866). In "Correspondence Respecting British and American Claims Arising out of the Late Civil War in the United States," PP, 1867, LXXIV, 3-6. REFERRED TO: 245, 246

SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM (1564-1616; DNB). Referred to: 73 / Henry IV. In The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, 847-85. REFERRED TO: 89

Julius Caesar. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 1105-34. QUOTED: 251

658

Appendix H

251.2-3 "the evil. . . them."] The evil that men do lives after them, / The good is oft interred with their bones; / So let it be with Caesar. (1121; III, ii, 75-7) Othello. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 1198-1248. NOTE: the quotation at 147 is indirect. QUOTED: 147, 378 378.21 "suckle] To suckle (1213; II, i, 160) Romeo and Juliet. In The Riverside Shakespeare, 1058-99. REFERRED TO: 245

SHAW-LEFEVRE, GEORGE JOHN (1831-1928; DNB). Motion on the Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1150-67. REFERRED TO: 245

Motion on the Married Women's Property Bill (10 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, cols. 1373-6. REFERRED TO: 284

Speech on the Sea Fisheries Bill, Ireland (25 June, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 192, col. 2021. REFERRED TO: 299

SIMONIDES (of Ceos) (ca. 557-468/7 B.C.; WWG). Referred to: 229 SMILES, SAMUEL (1812-1904; DNB). "Workmen's Benefit Societies," Quarterly Review, CXVI(Oct. 1864), 318-50. REFERRED TO: 29

SMITH, GOLDWIN (1823-1910; DNB). Referred to: 130-3 passim "England and America," Daily News, 27 Nov., 1862, 5. REFERRED TO: 130

SMITH, JOHN ABEL (1801-71; DNB). Motion on the Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill (27 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, col. 666. REFERRED TO: 191

SMITH, WILLIAM HENRY (1825-91; DNB). Referred to: 15, 25, 26, 40, 41, 44, 45, 336, 339, 348, 369 SOCRATES (469-399 B.C.; WWG). Referred to: 76 SOMERSET, HENRY CHARLES FITZROY (Duke of Beaufort) (1824-99; MEB). Referred

to: 362

SOUTH, ROBERT (1634-1716; DNB). A Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Nov. 9, 1662. Oxford: Robinson, 1663. QUOTED: 230 SPOFFORTH, MARKHAM (1825-1907). NOTE: a lawyer who assisted Philip Rose as Conservative parliamentary agent 1853-59, replacing him 1859-69; in 1875 he became a Taxing Master in Chancery. REFERRED TO: 307, 331 STANLEY, EDWARD GEORGE GEOFFREY SMITH (14th Earl of Derby) (1799-1869; DNB). Referred to: 165-6, 167, 171-2, 173, 356, 366 Speech on the Treaty of Paris (22 May, 1856; Lords), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 142, cols. 521-39. REFERRED TO: 222

STANLEY , EDWARD HENRY (15th Earl of Derby) (1826-93; DNB). Referred to: 25,35,59, 60, 117, 121, 122, 123, 213, 214, 225, 229, 284 Speech on the Representation of the People Bill (12 Apr., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 182, cols. 1163-76. REFERRED TO: 59

Index of Persons and Works

659

Motion on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (3 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 2004-8. REFERRED TO: 117

Speech on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (6 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 2113-15. REFERRED TO: 120,

122-3

Speech on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (6 Aug., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, col. 2124. REFERRED TO: 229

Speech on Turkey and Crete (28 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 186, cols. 718-25. REFERRED TO: 214

Statements on the Navy—Commodore Wiseman and the Turkish Navy (16 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, col. 1622. REFERRED TO: 214

Speech on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (6 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 986-9. REFERRED TO: 229-30

Speech on the Alabama Claims (6 Mar., 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, cols. 1168-78. REFERRED TO: 244, 245-6, 246 STEPHEN, JAMES FITZJAMES (1829-94; DNB). NOTE: see also The Times, 16 Jan., 1866. REFERRED TO: 111

SUMNER, CHARLES (1811-74; DAB). Referred to: 33 SYMMONS, EDWARD (fl. 1648). The First Sermon [on Phil. 2:21], Entitled "The EcclesiasticallSelfe-seeking," Preached. . . 1632. In Four Sermons. London: Crooke, 1642, 1-44. REFERRED TO: 338

TAYLOR, ALEXANDER (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

TAYLOR, CLEMENTIA (ne'e Doughty; d. 1908). NOTE: wife of Peter Alfred Taylor. REFERRED TO: 381

TAYLOR, JUSTIN A (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

TAYLOR, PETER ALFRED (1819-91; DNB). Motion for an Address on the Case of Fulford and Wellstead (5 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1147-53. REFERRED TO: 212

Motion on the Poor Relief Bill (17 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1421. REFERRED TO: 312

TEMPLE, HENRY JOHN (Lord Palmerston) (1784-1865; DNB). Referred to: 89, 351, 353, 356,359-60,361,365 THESIGER, FREDERICK (Baron Chelmsford) (1794-1878; DNB). Speech on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (19 July, 1866; Lords), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1054-8. REFERRED TO: 116

660

Appendix H

THOMPSON, THOMAS PERRONET (1783-1869; DNB). Speech on India—the Annexation of Oude (16 Feb., 1858; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 148, cols. 1539-42. REFERRED TO: 189

THWAITES, JOHN (1815-70; MEB). QUESTIONED: 437-43 REFERRED TO: 231,557 TlBALDI. NOTE: an Italian worker resident in Paris, accused of attempting to assassinate Napoleon III. REFERRED TO: c.i.1318, 1415 The Times. NOTE: anonymous articles follow in chronological order. Leading article on the Anti-Corn-Law League, 19 Dec., 1845, 4. REFERRED TO: 3

"Conference at the Mechanics' Institution on Secular Education," 31 Oct., 1850, 5. REFERRED TO: 3-5 passim Leading article on the Education Question, 4 Nov., 1850, 4. REFERRED TO: 3

Unheaded leader, 29 Mar., 1854, 9. NOTE: the quotation is indirect. QUOTED: 43 "Murderous Assault," 18 July, 1862, 5. REFERRED TO: 272

"Proposed Market at Leicester Square," 27, 28, and 30 Apr., 1863, 6, 10, 14. REFERRED TO: 487

"The Jamaica Committee," 16 Jan., 1866, 3. NOTE: the legal opinion of James and Stephen. QUOTED: 111 111.11 Fitzgerald.] Fitzgerald" (27 St. Ni., p. 65). (3) "Parliamentary Intelligence. House of Commons, Friday, June 8," 9 June, 1866, 6. REFERRED TO: 91

"Extraordinary Case of Extradition," 17 Sept., 1866, 10. REFERRED TO: 228

"Mr. Goldwin Smith on the Political History of England," 16 Jan., 1867, 12. REFERRED TO: 130

"The Distress of East London," 21 Jan., 1867, 4. REFERRED TO: 142

"Mr. Goldwin Smith on Cromwell," 22 Jan., 1867, 9. REFERRED TO: 130

"Mr. Goldwin Smith upon Pitt," 29 Jan., 1867, 7. REFERRED TO: 130

"Mr. Goldwin Smith upon Pitt (Concluded)," 5 Feb., 1867, 6. REFERRED TO: 130

Announcement for 5 Feb., 6 Feb., 1867, 8. NOTE: taken from the London Gazette. REFERRED TO: 136

"The Metropolitan Poor Bill," 7 Mar., 1867, 6. REFERRED TO: 141

Index of Persons and Works

661

"The Duke of Beaufort and the West Gloucester Election," 4 Nov., 1868, 4. REFERRED TO: 362

Unheaded leader on the Education Bill, 21 Mar., 1870, 8-9. REFERRED TO: 384

TOCQUEVILLE, CHARLES ALEXIS HENRI CL^REL BE (1805-59; GDU}. De la democratic en Amerique. [1st pt.] 2 vols. Paris: Gosselin, 1835. NOTE: autographed copy in SC. REFERRED TO:

66-7

TONE, THEOBALD WOLFE (1763-98; DNB). Referred to: 189 TORRENS, WILLIAM TORRENS MCCULLAGH (1813-94; DNB). Referred to: 274 Speech on International Maritime Law (2 Mar., 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 181, cols. 1433-7. REFERRED TO: 224

Speech on the Metropolitan Poor Bill (8 Mar., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 185, cols. 1615-16. REFERRED TO: 138

Motion on the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Bill (20 Nov., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 190, col. 103. REFERRED TO: 294 TRAIN, GEORGE FRANCIS (1829-1904). NOTE: an American merchant working for the imprisoned Fenians. REFERRED TO: 315

TREITT, NESTOR. NOTE: a French lawyer in Paris, counsel to the English Embassy.

QUESTIONED: 566-71 TREVELYAN, CHARLES EDWARD (1807-86; DNB).

NOTE: see also, under PP, "Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service," 1854. REFERRED TO: 88

VANCE, JOHN (d. 1875; WWBMP). Question on Ireland—Convicts Warren and Costello (21 July, 1868; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, col. 1556. REFERRED TO: 315

VICTORIA (of England) (1819-1901; DNB). Referred to: 87, 93, 100, 172, 215, 216 VILLIERS, GEORGE WILLIAM FREDERICK (Earl of Clarendon, Baron Hyde) (1800-70; DNB). Referred to: 412 "The Earl of Clarendon to Earl Cowley" (10 Jan., 1866). In "Correspondence Respecting the Extradition Treaty with France," PP, 1866, LXXVI, 375-8. REFERRED TO: 121

Letter to Lord Palmerston (6 Apr., 1856), Broadlands MS GC/CL/856. REFERRED TO: 221

Speech on the Extradition Treaties Act Amendment Bill (19 July, 1866; Lords), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1058-9. REFERRED TO: 116

VIRGIL (Publius Virgilius Maro) (70-19 B.C.; WWR). Aeneid. In Virgil (Latin and English). Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. 2 vols. London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam's Sons, 1922,1, 240-570 (Bks. I-VI) and II, 2-364 (Bks. VII-XII). NOTE: in SC is Opera, ed. C.G. Heyne, 4 vols. (London: Priestley, 1821). QUOTED: 270

662

Appendix H

WAKEFIELD, EDWARD GIBBON (1796-1862; DNB). A Letter from Sydney, the Principal Town of Australasia. Edited by Robert Gouger. Together with the Outline of a System of Colonization. London: Cross, etal., 1829. REFERRED TO: 16

Plan of a Company to Be Established for the Purpose of Founding a Colony in Southern Australia, Purchasing Land Therein, and Preparing the Land So Purchased for the Reception of Immigrants. London: Ridgway, 1831. NOTE: published anonymously. REFERRED TO: 16

WALKER, GEORGE (1824-88). NOTE: an American writer on currency and banking questions. REFERRED TO: 372

WALLACE, ROBERT (1831-99; DNB). Referred to: 408 WALPOLE, SPENCER HORATIO (1806-98; DNB). Referred to: 102, 119, 134, 290, 298 Statement on the Proposed Public Meeting in Hyde Park (19 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, col. 1075. REFERRED TO: 96

Speech on the Reform Meeting in Hyde Park (24 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1391-8. REFERRED TO: 99

Speech on the Proposed Reform Meeting in Hyde Park (26 July, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 184, cols. 1537-40. REFERRED TO: 101, 102, 104

WALTON, RICHARD (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94

WARD, MARY (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 95

WARREN, JOHN (fl. 1837-69). NOTE: a Fenian. REFERRED TO: 310, 315

WASON, PETER RIGBY (1798-1875; MEB). Referred to: 124 WATKIN, EDWARD WILLIAM (1819-1901; DNB). Speech on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (6 Aug., 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 189, cols. 982-3. REFERRED TO: 227,228 WELLESLEY, HENRY RICHARD (Earl Cowley) (1804-84; DNB). Referred to: 121 WELLSTEAD, MARK. NOTE: an alleged poacher. REFERRED TO: 199, 212

WEMYSS-CHARTERIS-DOUGLAS, FRANCIS (1818-1914; WWBMP). Speech on Parliamentary Reform—Representation of the People Bill (15 July, 1867; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 188, cols. 1574-81. REFERRED TO: 213

WHALLEY, GEORGE HAMPDEN (1813-78; DNB). Motion on the Church of England, Illegal Usages and Ornaments (23 May, 1865; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 178, cols. 774-5. REFERRED TO: 37

Whig Club, Instituted in May, 1784, by John Bellamy, to Be Composed of Gentlemen, Who Solemnly Pledge Themselves to Support the Constitution of This Country, According to the Principles Established at the Glorious Revolution. London: n.p., 1786.

Index of Persons and Works

663

NOTE: the toast quoted is a commonplace. QUOTED: 251 251.13 "pious and immortal memory"] The glorious and immortal memory of King William the Third. (1st Standing Toast, 15) WHITE, JAMES (1809-83; WWBMP). Referred to: 352 WHITESIDE, JAMES (1804-76; DNB). Speech on the Elective Franchise Bill (30 May, 1866; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 183, cols. 1502-10. REFERRED TO: 84, 92

WILKINSON, JOSIAH. NOTE: a barrister representing St. Pancras on the Metropolitan Board of Works 1856-64. REFERRED TO:

505

WILLIAM III (of England) (1650-1702; DNB). Referred to: 251 WILSON, JAMES. NOTE: a resident of Bloomsbury; had lived in New York, New Orleans, and Canada. QUESTIONED: 522-9 WINDHAM, WILLIAM (1750-1810; DNB). Speech on the Defence of the Country (22 July, 1807; Commons), PD, 1st ser., Vol. 9, cols. 882-906. NOTE: the quotation is indirect. QUOTED: 153 WINDSOR, CHARLES. NOTE: teller for Mercantile Bank of New York; accused of forgery. REFERRED TO: 549, 564 WINTER, WILLIAM (d. 1865). NOTE: put to death in Jamaica. REFERRED TO: 94

WINTERBOTHAM, HENRY SELFE PAGE (1837-73; DNB). Speech on the Inclosure Law Amendment Bill (23 Feb., 1871; Commons), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 204, cols. 823-6. REFERRED TO: 421

WISEMAN, WILLIAM SALTONSTALL (1814-74). NOTE: an Admiral in the British Navy. referred to: 213-14 WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM (1770-1850; DNB). Referred to: 73 WRIGHT. NOTE: French teacher in Clonmel. REFERRED TO: 111

YELVERTON. See Avonmore. ZINCKE, FOSTER BARHAM (1817-93; DNB). "The Elementary Education Bill," Sessional Proceedings of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, III (7 Apr., 1870), 346-7. NOTE: Zincke spoke in the discussion immediately before JSM. REFERRED TO: 392

664

BRITAIN PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS "Papers, Presented to the House of Commons, Relating to the Correspondence with America, on Certain Orders in Council" (1 Feb., 1809), PP, 1809, IX, 375-430. REFERRED TO: 226

"Copy of a Letter from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to His Grace the Duke of Leinster, on the Formation of a Board of Commissioners for Education in Ireland," PP, 1831 -32, XXIX, 757-60. REFERRED TO: 252

"A Bill [as Amended by the Committee] to Regulate the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom," 4 William IV (1 Aug., 1833), PP, 1833,11,281-95. NOTE: enacted as 3 & 4 William IV, c. 103. REFERRED TO: 394

"Report from His Majesty's Commissioners for Inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws" (21 Feb., 1834), PP, 1834, XXVII, 1-263. REFERRED TO: 139, 394, 529-JO "A Bill for the Amendment and Better Administration of the Laws Relating to the Poor in England and Wales," 4 William IV (18 Apr., 1834), PP, 1834, III, 235-90. NOTE: enacted as 4 & 5 William IV, c. 76. REFERRED TO: 394

"First Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire as to the Best Means of Establishing an Efficient Constabulary Force in the Counties of England and Wales," PP, 1839, XIX, 1-233. REFERRED TO: 529

"Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, Signed at Washington" (9 Aug., 1842), PP, 1843, LXI, 1-8. REFERRED TO: 543, 564 "Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French, for the Mutual Surrender, in Certain Cases, of Persons Fugitive from Justice" (13 Mar., 1843), PP, 1867-68, VII, 257. NOTE: see also 6 & 7 Victoria, c. 75. REFERRED TO: 117, 544, 570

"An Account of Loans Advanced by the Imperial Treasury for Public Works in Ireland:—Similar Account for England and Scotland:—Remittances from the British and Irish Exchequers; and Totals of Relief of Taxation to Great Britain and Ireland Respectively, in Each Year since 1800," PP, 1847, LIV, 91-282. REFERRED TO: 252

"First and Second Report of the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission," PP, 1847-48, XXXII, 1-319. REFERRED TO: 529-30

"Despatches between the Governor of Malta and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Relating to the Admission of Foreigners into the Island of Malta" (12 Mar., 1850), PP, 1850, XXXVI, 843-917. REFERRED TO: 577

Index of Persons and Works

665

"Convention between Great Britain and France, for the Mutual Surrender of Criminals, —Signed at London, May 28, 1852." British and Foreign State Papers 1851-52. Vol. 41. London: Ridgway, 1864, 20-36. REFERRED TO: 544

"Report on the Census of 1851," PP, 1852-53, LXXXV, 9-98. REFERRED TO:

459

"Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Existing State of the Corporation of the City of London, and to Collect Information Respecting Its Constitution, Order, and Government, together with the Minutes of Evidence and Appendix," PP, 1854, XXVI, 1-1098. REFERRED TO: 230, 275, 447, 501 "Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service, together with a Letter from the Rev. B. Jowett," PP, 1854, XXVII, 1-31. NOTE: known as the Northcote-Trevelyan Report; prepared by Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, who dated it 23 Nov., 1853. REFERRED TO: 88

"Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, Signed by the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, Assembled in Congress at Paris" (16 Apr., 1856), PP, 1856, LXI, 153-8. REFERRED TO: 220-7 passim, 412 "Ordinance of the Government of Labuan, for Facilitating the Apprehension and Surrender of Certain Offenders Escaping to Labuan from the Dominions of the Sultan of Borneo" (4 Feb., 1857), British and Foreign State Papers, LVIII (1867-68), 754-6. REFERRED TO:

560

"A Bill to Amend the Laws with Respect to the Property of Married Women," 20 Victoria (14 May, 1857), PP, 1857, III, Pt. ii, 243-8. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 284, 378 "An Account of Gross Public Revenue and Expenditure from the Year 1851 to the Year 1857 Inclusive . . .,"PP, 1857-58, XXXIII, 134. REFERRED TO: 70

"An Account of the Expenditure for the Army, Navy, Ordnance, and Militia from 1851-1857 Inclusive . . ."PP, 1857-58, XXXIII, 135. REFERRED TO: 70

"A Bill Further to Amend the Laws Relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales," 23 Victoria (1 Mar., 1860), PP, 1860, V, 597-608. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 58

"Report from the Select Committee on the Gas (Metropolis) Bill; with the Proceedings of the Committee, and Minutes of Evidence (27 July, I860)," PP, 1860, XXI, 29-428. REFERRED TO: 454

"Report from the Select Committee on the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) etc.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix, and Index," PP, 1860, X, 1-338. NOTE: see also Philip Rose. QUOTED: 308 REFERRED TO: 307 "A Bill to Grant Additional Facilities for Depositing Small Savings at Interest, with the Security of the Government for Due Repayment Thereof," 24 Victoria (11 Feb .,1861), PP, 1861,111,781-8.

666

Appendix H

NOTE: enacted as 24 Victoria, c. 14. REFERRED TO: 365

" Second Report from the Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation; together with the Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix" (24 June, 1861), PP, 1861, VIII, 137-380. REFERRED TO: 163, 446, 448, 455 "Third Report from the Select Committee on Metropolis Local Taxation with the Proceedings of the Committee" (26 July, 1861), PP, 1861, VIII, 381-422. REFERRED TO: 164

"A Bill to Render Legal Certain Marriages of Affinity," 25 Victoria (11 Feb., 1862), PP, 1862, III, 133-4. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 26

"Education. Minute of the Right Honourable the Lords of the Privy Council on Education Establishing a Revised Code of Regulations," PP, 1862, XLI, 115-62. REFERRED TO: 68

"Education. Minute of the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education Confirming the Alterations of the Revised Code of Regulations Announced in Parliament on 13th February and 28th March, 1862, and Specifying the Course to Be Adopted for Putting It into Effect," PP, 1862, XLI, 167-88. REFERRED TO: 68

"General Report on the Census of 1861," PP, 1863, LIII, 1-89. REFERRED TO: 459

"A Bill to Enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in Certain Districts to Prevent the Common Sale of Intoxicating Liquors within Such Districts," 27 Victoria (10 Mar., 1864), PP, 1864, II, 357-64. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO:

26-7

"A Bill for the Commutation of Church Rates," 28 Victoria (21 Feb., 1865), PP, 1865,1, 135-54. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 35

"A Bill to Substitute an Oath for the Oath Required to Be Taken by the Statute Passed in the Tenth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," 28 Victoria (21 Mar., 1865), PP, 1865, IV, 375-8. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 35

"A Bill to Allow the Charging of the Excise Duty on Malt According to the Weight of the Grain Used," 28 Victoria (19 May, 1865), PP, 1865, III, 1-6. NOTE: enacted as 28 & 29 Victoria, c. 66. REFERRED TO: 31

"Report from the Select Committee on the Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Act, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index" (23 June, 1865), PP, 1865, XI, 341-622. REFERRED TO: 80

"Supplement to the Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England," PP, 1865, XIII, 1-683. REFERRED TO: 465

"Suggestions, by the Medical Officers of Health of the Metropolis, for Amendments Which They Deem Desirable, in the Existing Sanitary Acts," App. 10 of "The Seventh Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, with Appendix," PP, 1865, XXVI, 528-32. REFERRED TO: 500

Index of Persons and Works

667

"Memorandum of the Conference at the Foreign Office" (8 Feb., 1866). In "Correspondence Respecting the Extradition Treaty with France" (July 1866), PP, 1866, LXXVI, 389-91. REFERRED TO: 122

"A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Contagious or Infectious Diseases in Cattle and Other Animals," 29 Victoria (12 Feb., 1866), PP, 1866,1, 423-44. NOTE: enacted as 29 Victoria, c.2. REFERRED TO: 42-52 passim "A Bill to Empower the Lord Lieutenant or Other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland to Apprehend and Detain until the First Day of March One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Seven, Such Persons as He or They Shall Suspect of Conspiring against Her Majesty's Person and Government," 29 Victoria (16 Feb., 1866), PP, 1866, III, 121-4. NOTE: enacted as 29 Victoria, c.l. REFERRED TO: 52-4

"A Bill to Provide Better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers," 29 Victoria (20 Feb., 1866), PP, 1866,1, 43-52. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 274, 294 "A Bill to Extend the Elective Franchise for Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales," 29 Victoria (22 Feb., 1866), PP, 1866, II, 493-514. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 84

"A Bill to Render Legal Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister," 29 Victoria (6 Mar., 1866), PP, 1866, III, 501-3. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 26

"A Bill for the Better Settling the Real Estates of Intestates," 29 Victoria (13 Mar., 1866), PP, 1866, V, 29-32. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 346

"A Bill to Extend the Right of Voting at Elections of Members of Parliament in England and Wales," 29 Victoria (13 Mar. 1866), PP, 1866, V, 87-100. NOTE: "Gladstone's Reform Bill"; not enacted. REFERRED TO: 54-69 passim, 87-90 passim, 171, 355 "A Bill to Amend and Consolidate the Law Relating to Bankruptcy in England, and to Abolish Imprisonment for Debt on Final Process," 29 Victoria (16 Apr., 1866), PP, 1866,1, 103-236. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 187

"A Bill Further to Amend the Law Relating to the Tenure and Improvement of Land in Ireland," 29 Victoria (30 Apr., 1866), PP, 1866, V, 353-64. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 75-83

"A Bill for the Redistribution of Seats," 29 Victoria (7 May, 1866), PP, 1866, V, 33-48. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 84-6 passim, 469, 489, 538

"A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to the Public Health," 29 Victoria (6 June 1866), PP, 1866, IV, 375-9. See also the version as amended in Committee (29 June, 1866), below. REFERRED TO: 500

668

Appendix H

"Petition for Admission of Women to the Elective Franchise " (7 June, 1866), Reports of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Petitions, Session 1866, 697. REFERRED TO: 91

"A Bill [as Amended by the Select Committee] to Provide Better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers," 29 Victoria (18 June, 1866), PP, 1866,1, 53-72. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 274, 294 "A Bill [as Amended by the Select Committee and on Re-commitment] to Amend the Law Relating to the Public Health," 29 Victoria (29 June, 1866), PP, 1866, IV, 425-48. NOTE: enacted as 29 & 30 Victoria, c. 90. REFERRED TO: 114-15

"A Bill Intituled An Act for the Amendment of the Law Relating to Treaties of Extradition," 29 & 30 Victoria (26 July, 1866), PP, 1866, III, 39-42. NOTE: enacted as 29 & 30 Victoria, c. 121. REFERRED TO: 1 1 6 , 1 1 7

"Reports from the Select Committee on Metropolitan Local Government, etc.; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix" (16 Apr. and 30 July, 1866), PP, 1866, XIII, 171-628. REFERRED TO: 162, 163, 230

"Report of the Jamaica Royal Commission, with Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix," PP, 1866, XXX, 489-531; XXXI, 1-1172. REFERRED TO: 106-7

"Returns of the Total Number of Voters in Every Borough and City in England and Wales in Which There Was a Contest at the Last Election . . .," PP, 1866, LVII, 747-9. REFERRED TO: 62, 63

"A Bill to Amend the Law of Libel, and Thereby to Secure More Effectually the Liberty of the Press," 30 Victoria (8 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867, III, 391-4. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 194

"A Bill to Provide Better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers," 30 Victoria (12 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867,1, 109-28. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 294

"A Bill to Exempt Associations of Workmen from Certain Disabilities for a Limited Time," 30 Victoria (14 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867,1, 129-30. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 144

"A Bill to Provide for the Carrying into Effect Capital Punishments within Prisons," 30 Victoria (14 Feb., 1867), PP, 1867,1, 521-4. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 272

"A Bill for Regulating the Hours of Labour for Children, Young Persons, and Women Employed in Workshops; and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto," 30 Victoria (1 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867, III, 121-32. NOTE: enacted as 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 146. REFERRED TO: 238

"A Bill [as Amended in Committee] for the Establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and Other Classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the Distribution over the Metropolis of Portions of the Charge for Poor Relief; and for Other

Index of Persons and Works

669

Purposes Relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis," 30 Victoria (7 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867,IV, 283-324. NOTE: enacted as 30 Victoria, c.6. REFERRED TO: 134, 136-43 passim "A Bill to Repeal Enactments Relating to Bankruptcy in England, and to Matters Connected Therewith," 30 Victoria (14 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867,1, 377-80. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 187

"A Bill Further to Amend the Laws Relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales," 30 Victoria (18 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867, V, 521-46. NOTE: the Second Reform Bill. See also the version as amended in Committee (9 July, 1867), below. REFERRED TO: 143, 145, 146-51 passim, 164-5, 167-87 passim, 194-201 passim, 205-11 passim "Copy of the Proceedings of the Courts Martial Recently Held in Jamaica upon Ensign Cullen and Assistant-Surgeon Morris of Her Majesty's Service, Including the Findings of the Courts, and the Nature of the Sentences, if Any, Awarded to the Accused" (29 Mar., 1867), PP, 1867, XLII, 31-342. REFERRED TO: 218

"A Bill to Amend the Act of the 21st Year of George the Third, Chapter Forty-nine, Intitled 'An Act for Preventing Certain Abuses and Profanations on the Lord's Day, Called Sunday,'" 30 Victoria (2 Apr., 1867), PP, 1867, VI, 367-70. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 190-3

"A Bill to Provide for the More Effectual Prevention of Corrupt Practices and Undue Influence at Parliamentary Elections," 30 Victoria (9 Apr., 1867), PP, 1867, II, 213-32. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 148

"A Bill for the Better and More Effectually Securing the Use of Certain Royal Parks and Gardens for the Enjoyment and Recreation of Her Majesty's Subjects," 30 Victoria (3 May, 1867), PP, 1867, IV, 63-6. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 215-17,237-8 "Petition for Revision of Sentences Passed upon the Fenians" (3 May, 1867), Reports from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Petitions, Session 1867-68, 223-4. REFERRED TO: 188-9

"A Bill for the Establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis," 30 Victoria (21 May, 1867), PP, 1867, IV, 447-66. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 162-5, 230, 273, 291 "A Bill [as Amended by the Select Committee] for Confirming a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the Several Charities Founded by the Settlement and Will of Christopher Tancred of Whixley in the County of York, Esquire, Deceased," 30 & 31 Victoria (25 June, 1867), PP, 1867, VI, 381-4. NOTE: enacted as 34 & 35 Victoria, c.117. REFERRED TO: 206

"A Bill [as Amended in Committee] Further to Amend the Laws Relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales," 30 & 31 Victoria (9 July, 1867), PP, 1867, V, 547-80.

670

Appendix H

NOTE: the Second Reform Bill, enacted as 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 102. See also the unamended version of the Bill (18 Mar., 1867), above. REFERRED TO: 213, 232 "A Bill for Regulating the Hours of Labour for Children, Young Persons, and Women Employed in Workshops; and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto," 30 & 31 Victoria (16 July, 1867), PP, 1867, III, 133-47. NOTE: enacted as 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 146. REFERRED TO: 354

"A Bill to Continue Various Expiring Laws," 30 & 31 Victoria (26 July, 1867), PP, 1867, II, 733-6. NOTE: enacted as 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 143. REFERRED TO: 227-30 "A Bill for the Better Government of the Metropolis," 30 & 31 Victoria (6 Aug., 1867), PP, 1867, IV, 215-56. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 163, 230-1, 273 "A Bill to Provide Better Dwellings for Artizans and Labourers," 31 Victoria (20 Nov., 1867), PP, 1867-68,1, 21-42. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 130. REFERRED TO: 238, 294 "A Bill for the Establishment of a Foreign Cattle Market for the Metropolis; and for Other Purposes Connected Therewith," 31 Victoria (5 Dec., 1867), PP, 1867-68, III, 387-94. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 329, 331, 332 "Reports of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Organization and Rules of Trades Unions and Other Associations; together with Minutes of Evidence," PP, 1867, XXXII, 1-396. REFERRED TO: 144

"Correspondence Respecting British and American Claims Arising out of the Late Civil War in the United States," PP, 1867, LXXIV, 1-48. REFERRED TO: 244

"Correspondence Respecting the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg," PP, 1867, LXXIV, 449-92. REFERRED TO: 225-6

"A Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People in Scotland," 31 Victoria (17 Feb., 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 583-616. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 48. REFERRED TO: 281-3

"A Bill to Provide for Carrying out of Capital Punishment within Prisons," 31 Victoria (20 Feb., 1868), PP, 1867-68,1, 261-6. NOTE: enacted as 31 Victoria, c. 24. REFERRED TO: 266-72 passim "A Bill [as Amended in Committee] for Amending the Laws Relating to Election Petitions, and Providing More Effectually for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections," 31 Victoria (16 Mar., 1868), PP, 1867-68, II, 291-307. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 125. REFERRED TO: 262-5, 279-80, 300, 301-3, 306-10, 311-12, 313-14, 316-19, 326-8, 329-30, 343 "A Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in Ireland," 31 Victoria (19 Mar., 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 549-64.

Index of Persons and Works

671

NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 49. REFERRED TO: 288

"A Bill to Amend the Law with Respect to the Property of Married Women," 31 Victoria (21 Apr., 1868), PP, 1867-68, III, 375-8. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 283-6, 379 "A Bill to Amend in Certain Respects the Act for the Better Government of India," 31 Victoria (23 Apr., 1868), PP, 1867-68, II, 479-82. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 288-9, 296-7, 305-6 "A Bill to Amend the Laws Relative to the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries of Ireland," 31 Victoria (30 Apr., 1868), PP, 1867-68, V, 205-20. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 299

"A Bill for the Creation of a Corporation of London," 31 Victoria (7 May, 1868), PP, 1867-68,1, 347-96. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 273-6 passim, 290-1 "A Bill to Provide for the Establishment of Municipal Corporations within the Metropolis," 31 Victoria (7 May, 1868), PP, 1867-68, III, 515-36. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 273-6 passim, 290-5, 300-1, 349-50 "A Bill [as Amended in Committee and by the Select Committee] to Make Further Provision for the Good Government and Extension of Certain Public Schools in England," 31 Victoria (22 May, 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 317-36. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 118. REFERRED TO: 290, 298-9, 304 "A Bill Intituled An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Railways," 31 Victoria (28 May, 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 513-30. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 119. REFERRED TO: 328, 333 "A Bill to Amend the Law of Registration so Far as Relates to the Year 1868, and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto," 31 Victoria (11 June, 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 395-406. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 58. REFERRED TO: 289

"A Bill to Make Further Amendments in the Laws for the Relief of the Poor, "31 Victoria (23 June, 1868), PP, 1867-68, IV, 167-78. NOTE: enacted as 31 & 32 Victoria, c. 122. REFERRED TO: 312,334 "Report of the Select Committee on Extradition" (6 July, 1868), PP, 1867-68, VH, 129-338. REFERRED TO: 542-71

"Copy of the Minute of the Lords of the Committee of Council on Education Relating to Scientific Instruction; and Explanatory Memorandum Thereon," PP, 1867-68, LIV, 17-22. NOTE: the reference is anticipatory. REFERRED TO: 217-18

"Further Correspondence Respecting British and American Claims Arising out of the Late Civil War in the United States," PP, 1867-68, LXXIII, 1-10. REFERRED TO: 244

672

Appendix H

"A Bill to Enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in Certain Districts to Prevent the Common Sale of Intoxicating Liquors within Such Districts," 32 Victoria (22 Feb., 1869), PP, 1868-69, IV, 285-90. NOTE: the reference is general. REFERRED TO: 340, 344 "A Bill to Amend the Law with Respect to the Property of Married Women," 32 Victoria (25 Feb., 1869), PP, 1868-69, III, 427-30. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 379

"A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Trade Combinations and Trade Unions," 32 Victoria (9 Apr., 1869), PP, 1868-69, V, 323-8. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 341

"Treaty between Great Britain and Spain, Respecting Quedah" (6 May, 1869), British and Foreign State Papers, LIX (1868-69), 1147-50. REFERRED TO: 560-7

"Report from the Select Committee on the Inclosure Act; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix" (7 July, 1869), PP, 1868-69, X, 327-505. REFERRED TO: 427

"A Bill to Remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women," 33 Victoria (16 Feb., 1870), PP, 1870, IV, 799. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 391

"A Bill to Provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales," 33 Victoria (17 Feb., 1870), PP, 1870,1, 505-42. NOTE: enacted as 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75. REFERRED TO: 381-6,391-2 "A Bill to Amend the Law Relating to Inclosures of Commons, and to Provide for the Management of Commons Situate near Towns," 34 Victoria (14 Feb., 1871), PP, 1871, II, 377-96. NOTE: not enacted. REFERRED TO: 420-1

"A Bill for the Better Regulation of the Regular and Auxiliary Land Forces of the Crown; and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto," 34 & 35 Victoria (16 Feb., 1871), PP, 1871, I, 11-38. NOTE: enacted as 34 & 35 Victoria, c. 86. REFERRED TO: 411-15

"Report of the Royal Commission upon the Administration and Operation of the Contagious Diseases Acts," PP, 1871, XIX, 3-20. REFERRED TO: 411

"Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services, for 1871-72," PP, 1871, XXXVIII, 1-194. REFERRED TO: 412

"Royal Warrant, Dated 20th July 1871, to Cancel and Determine All Regulations Authorizing the Purchase or Sale or Exchange for Money of Commissions in the Army, from the 1st November, 1871,"PP, 1871, XXXIX, 601. REFERRED TO: 412

Index of Persons and Works

673

STATUTES 12 Charles II, c. 24. An Act for Taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Tenures in capite, and by Knights-Service, and Purveyance, and for Settling a Revenue upon His Majesty in Lieu Thereof (1660). REFERRED TO: 417

18 Charles II, c. 2. An Act against Importing Cattle from Ireland and Other Parts beyond the Seas, and Fish Taken by Foreigners (1666). REFERRED TO: 251

25 Charles II, c. 2. An Act for Preventing Dangers Which May Happen from Popish Recusants (1672). NOTE: the first Test Act. REFERRED TO: 250

30 Charles II, 2nd sess., c. 1. An Act for the More Effectual Preserving the King's Person and Government, by Disabling Papists from Sitting in Either House of Parliament (1677)[1678]. NOTE: the second Test Act. REFERRED TO: 250

1 William and Mary, c. 32. An Act for the Better Preventing the Exportation of Wooll, and Encouraging the Woollen Manufactures of This Kingdom (1688). REFERRED TO: 251

2 William and Mary, Sess. 1, c. 8. For Reversing the Judgment in a Quo Warranto against the City of London, and for Restoring the City of London to Its Ancient Rights and Privileges (1689). REFERRED TO: 444

4 William and Mary, c. 1. An Act for Granting to Their Majesties an Aid of Four Shillings in the Pound for One Year, for Carrying on a Vigorous War against France (1692). REFERRED TO: 417

7 & 8 William III, c. 27. An Act for the Better Security of His Majesty's Royal Person and Government (1696). REFERRED TO: 250

8 & 9 William III, c. 21. An Act for Laying a Duty upon Leather for the Term of Three Years (1697). NOTE: the reference is inferred. REFERRED TO: 251

10 & 11 William ffl, c. 10. An Act to Prevent the Exportation of Wooll out of the Kingdom of Ireland and England into Foreign Parts; and for the Encouragement of the Woollen Manufactures in the Kingdom of England (1699). REFERRED TO: 251

4 George II, c. 28. An Act for the More Effectual Preventing of Frauds Committed by Tenants, and for the More Easy Recovery of Rents, and Renewal of Leases (24 June, 1731). REFERRED TO: 357-8

33 George III, c. 4. An Act for Establishing Regulations Respecting Aliens Arriving in This Kingdom or Resident Therein, in Certain Cases (1793). REFERRED TO: 563

39 & 40 George HI,c. 67. An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (2 July, 1800). REFERRED TO: 250,

251

674

Appendix H

41 George III, c. 109. An Act for Consolidating in One Act Certain Provisions Usually Inserted in Acts of Inclosure; and for Facilitating the Mode of Proving the Several Acts Usually Required on the Passing of Such Acts (2 July, 1801). REFERRED TO: 427

55 George III, c. 26. An Act to Amend the Laws Now in Force for Regulating the Importation of Corn (23 Mar., 1815). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321 60 George III & 1 George IV, c. 9. An Act to Subject Certain Publications to the Duties of Stamps upon Newspapers, and to Make Other Regulations for Restraining the Abuses Arising from the Publication of Blasphemous and Seditious Libels (30 Dec., 1819). REFERRED TO: 287

3 George IV, c. 60. An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Importation of Corn (15 July, 1822). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321 7 & 8 George IV, c. 57. An Act to Permit, until 1st May, 1828, Certain Corn, Meal, and Flour to Be Entered for Home Consumption (2 July, 1827). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321 9 George IV, c. 17. An Act for Repealing So Much of Several Acts as Imposes the Necessity of Receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a Qualification for Certain Offices and Employments (9 May, 1828). REFERRED TO: 67, 75

9 George IV, c. 60. An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Importation of Com (15 July, 1828). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321

10 George IV, c. 7. An Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects (13 Apr., 1829). REFERRED TO: 52, 67, 75, 249, 251

10 George IV, c. 44. An Act for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis (19 June, 1829). REFERRED TO: 293

1 & 2 William IV, c. 32. An Act to Amend the Laws in England Relative to Game (5 Oct., 1831). REFERRED TO: 331

2 & 3 William IV, c. 45. An Act to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales (7 June, 1832). NOTE: the First Reform Act. QUOTED: 500 REFERRED TO: 57, 63, 64, 111, 295, 461 2 & 3 William IV, c. 62. An Act for Abolishing the Punishment of Death in Certain Cases, and Substituting a Lesser Punishment in Lieu Thereof (11 July, 1832). REFERRED TO: 267

3 & 4 William IV, c. 103. An Act to Regulate the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom (29 Aug., 1833). REFERRED TO: 394

4 & 5 William IV, c. 76. An Act for the Amendment and Better Administration of the Laws Relating to the Poor in England and Wales (14 Aug., 1834). REFERRED TO: 136, 139, 451, 463, 464, 529, 535 5 & 6 William IV, c. 76. An Act to Provide for the Regulation of Municipal Corporations in England and Wales (9 Sept., 1835). REFERRED TO: 295, 308, 451, 456

Index of Persons and Works

675

6 & 7 William IV, c. 86. An Act for Registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England (17 Aug., 1836). REFERRED TO: 293

6 & 7 William IV, c. 115. An Act for Facilitating the Inclosure of Open and Arable Fields in England and Wales (20 Aug., 1836). REFERRED TO: 427

1 Victoria, c. 2. An Act for the Support of Her Majesty's Household, and of the Honour and Dignity of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (23 Dec., 1837). REFERRED TO: 215

1 & 2 Victoria, c. 109. An Act to Abolish Composition for Tithes in Ireland, and to Substitute Rent-charges in Lieu Thereof (15 Aug., 1838). REFERRED TO: 252

2 & 3 Victoria, c. 47. An Act for Further Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis (17 Aug., 1839). REFERRED TO: 529

3 & 4 Victoria, c. 29. An Act to Extend the Practice of Vaccination (23 July, 1840). REFERRED TO: 449

3 & 4 Victoria, c. 96. An Act for the Regulation of the Duties of Postage (10 Aug., 1840). REFERRED TO: 64

5 & 6 Victoria, c. 102. An Act for the Better Discovery and Prevention of Bribery and Treating at the Election of Members of Parliament (10 Aug., 1842). REFERRED TO: 148, 280

5 & 6 Victoria, sess. 2, c. 14. An Act to Amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn (29 Apr., 1842). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321 6 Victoria, c. 18. An Act to Amend the Law for the Registration of Persons Entitled to Vote, and to Define Certain Rights of Voting, and to Regulate Certain Proceedings in the Election of Members to Serve in Parliament for England and Wales (31 May, 1843). REFERRED TO: 60,319

6 & 7 Victoria, c. 75. An Act for Giving Effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the French for the Apprehension of Certain Offenders (22 Aug., 1843). QUOTED: 121 REFERRED TO: 116, 117, 120-3 passim 121.18 It] [no paragraph] And . . . it 121.18 peace, having] peace, or other person having 121.18 trial, to] trial persons accused of crimes against the laws of that part of Her Majesty's dominions in which such supposed offender shall be found, to 121.20 law] laws 121.21 committal of the person accused] committal for trial of the person so accused 121.21 crime had] crime of which he or she shall be so accused had 121.22-3 for the magistrate to commit the prisoner into the custody of the officers of the Power so demanding him.] for such justice of the peace, or other person having power to commit as aforesaid, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of such person, and also to commit the person so accused to gaol, there to remain until delivered pursuant to such requisition as aforesaid.

8 & 9 Victoria, c. 21 (Private and Local Acts). An Act for Better Ascertaining and Collecting the Poor and Other Rates in the Parish of Battersea (1845). REFERRED TO: 515-16, 521 8 & 9 Victoria, c. 25. An Act to Amend Two Acts Passed in Ireland for the Better Education of Persons Professing the Roman-Catholic Religion, and for the Better Government of the College Established at Maynooth for the Education of Such Persons; and also An Act

676

Appendix H

Passed in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for Amending Said Two Acts (30 June, 1845). REFERRED TO: 18, 31

8 & 9 Victoria, c. 118. An Act to Facilitate the Inclosure and Improvement of Commons and Lands Held in Common, the Exchange of Lands, and the Division of Intermixed Lands; to Provide Remedies for Defective or Incomplete Executions, and for the Nonexecution of the Powers of General and Local Inclosure Acts; and to Provide for the Revival of Such Powers in Certain Cases (8 Aug., 1845). REFERRED TO: 420, 427 8 & 9 Victoria, c. 120. An Act for Facilitating Execution of the Treaties with France and the United States of America, for the Apprehension of Certain Offenders (8 Aug., 1845). REFERRED TO: 116, 117, 120-3 passim 9 & 10 Victoria, c. 22. An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Importation of Corn (26 June, 1846). REFERRED TO: 57, 64, 67, 321

9 & 10 Victoria, c. 95. An Act for the More Easy Recovery of Small Debts and Demands in England (28 Aug., 1846). REFERRED TO: 293

11 & 12 Victoria, c. 43. An Act to Facilitate the Performance of the Duties of Justices of the Peace out of Sessions, within England and Wales, with Respect to Summary Convictions and Orders (14 Aug., 1848). REFERRED TO: 333

11 & 12 Victoria, c. 63. An Act for Promoting the Public Health (31 Aug., 1848). REFERRED TO: 529

12 & 13 Victoria, c. 29. An Act to Amend the Laws in Force for the Encouragement of British Shipping and Navigation (26 June, 1849). REFERRED TO: 64

12 & 13 Victoria, c. 77. An Act Further to Facilitate the Sale and Transfer of Incumbered Estates in Ireland (28 July, 1849). REFERRED TO: 52, 253

13 & 14 Victoria, c. 65. An Act for Enabling Town Councils to Establish Public Libraries and Museums (14 Aug., 1850). REFERRED TO: 395

13 & 14 Victoria, c. 69. An Act to Amend the Laws Which Regulate the Qualification and Registration of Parliamentary Voters in Ireland, and to Alter the Law for Rating Immediate Lessors of Premises to the Poor Rate in Certain Boroughs (14 Aug., 1850). REFERRED TO: 60

14 & 15 Victoria, c. 28. An Act for the Well-Ordering of Common Lodging Houses (24 July, 1851). REFERRED TO: 445,

500

15 & 16 Victoria, c. 31. An Act to Legalize the Formation of Industrial and Provident Societies (30 June, 1852). REFERRED TO: 29

15 & 16 Victoria, c. 50. An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Laws Relating to the Militia in England (30 June, 1852). REFERRED TO: 293

15 & 16 Victoria, c. 84. An Act to Make Better Provision Respecting the Supply of Water to the Metropolis (1 July, 1852). REFERRED TO: 447,

463

Index of Persons and Works

677

16 & 17 Victoria, c. 99. An Act to Substitute, in Certain Cases, Other Punishment in Lieu of Transportation (20 Aug., 1853). REFERRED TO: 272

17 & 18 Victoria, c. 102. An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Laws Relating to Bribery, Treating, and Undue Influence at Elections of Members of Parliament (10 Aug., 1854). REFERRED TO: 148,317

18 & 19 Victoria, c. 63. An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Law Relating to Friendly Societies (23 July, 1855). REFERRED TO: 144

18 & 19 Victoria, c. 116. An Act for the Better Prevention of Diseases (14 Aug., 1855). REFERRED TO: c.i.1779, 1785, 1831,2184 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 120. An Act for the Better Local Management of the Metropolis (14 Aug., 1855). REFERRED TO: 163, 275, 294, 295, 437-542 passim 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 121. An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts, 1848 and 1849 (14 Aug., 1855). REFERRED TO: 445-6, 451, 462-3, 488, 509 18 & 19 Victoria, c. 122. An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Construction of Buildings in the Metropolis and Its Neighbourhood (14 Aug., 1855). REFERRED TO: 293

19 Victoria, c. 10. An Act for Punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the Better Payment of the Army and Their Quarters (14 Mar., 1856). NOTE: the quotation and reference are illustrative. QUOTED: 113 REFERRED TO: 263 19 & 20 Victoria, c. 58. An Act to Amend the Law for the Registration of Persons Entitled to Vote in the Election of Members to Serve in Parliament for Burghs in Scotland (21 July, 1856). REFERRED TO: 60

19 & 20 Victoria, c. 120. An Act to Facilitate Leases and Sales of Settled Land (29 July, 1856). REFERRED TO: 417,

418

20 & 21 Victoria, c. 85. An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England (28 Aug., 1857). REFERRED TO: 285

20 & 21 Victoria, c. 150 (Local and Private Acts). An Act for Enabling the Metropolitan Board of Works to Form a Park for the Northern Suburbs of the Metropolis, to be Called Finsbury Park (1857). REFERRED TO: 577

21 & 22 Victoria, c. 49. An Act to Provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects Professing the Jewish Religion (23 July, 1858). REFERRED TO: 67, 337 23 Victoria, c. 22. An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Customs (15 May, 1860). REFERRED TO: 64

23 & 24 Victoria, c. 84. An Act for Preventing the Adulteration of Articles of Food or Drink (6 Aug., 1860). REFERRED TO: 445-6, 451, 462-3 23 & 24 Victoria, c. 125. An Act for Better Regulating the Supply of Gas to the Metropolis (28 Aug., 1860). REFERRED TO: 445-6, 451, 454, 462-3

678

Appendix H

24 Victoria, c. 14. An Act to Grant Additional Facilities for Depositing Small Savings at Interest, with the Security of the Government for Due Repayment Thereof (17 May, 1861). REFERRED TO: 360,

365

24 Victoria, c. 20. An Act to Continue Certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue for the Service of Her Majesty, and to Alter and Repeal Certain Other Duties (12 June, 1861). REFERRED TO: 360,

365

24 & 25 Victoria, c. 100. An Act to Consolidate and Amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland Relating to Offences against the Person (6 Aug., 1861). REFERRED TO: 108, 272

25 & 26 Victoria, c. 47. An Act to Authorize the Inclosure of Certain Lands in Pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales (29 July, 1862). REFERRED TO: 74

25 & 26 Victoria, c. 110. An Act to Enable Boards of Guardians of Certain Unions to Obtain Temporary Aid to Meet the Extraordinary Demands for Relief Therein (7 Aug., 1862). REFERRED TO: 349

26 & 27 Victoria, c. 44. An Act for the Further Security of the Persons of Her Majesty's Subjects from Personal Violence (13 July, 1863). REFERRED TO: 272

27 & 28 Victoria, c. 43. An Act to Grant Additional Facilities for the Purchase of Small Government Annuities, and for Assuring Payments of Money on Death (14 July, 1864). REFERRED TO: 360, 365 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 85. An Act for the Prevention of Contagious Diseases at Certain Naval and Military Stations (29 July, 1864). REFERRED TO: 388, 411

28 Victoria, c. 11. An Act for Punishing Mutiny and Desertion, and for the Better Payment of the Army and Their Quarters (7 Apr., 1865). REFERRED TO: 112-13

28 Victoria, c. 36. An Act to Amend the Law Relating to the Registration of County Voters, and to the Powers and Duties of Revising Barristers in Certain Cases (2 June, 1865). REFERRED TO: 60

28 & 29 Victoria, c. 63. An Act to Remove Doubts as to the Validity of Colonial Laws (29 June, 1865). REFERRED TO: 64

28 & 29 Victoria, c. 66. An Act to Allow the Charging of the Excise Duty on Malt According to the Weight of the Grain Used (29 June, 1865). REFERRED TO: 31

28 & 29 Victoria, c. 79. An Act to Provide for the Better Distribution of the Charge for the Relief of the Poor in Unions (29 June, 1865). REFERRED TO: 464

28 & 29 Victoria, c. 90. An Act for the Establishment of a Fire Brigade within the Metropolis (5 July, 1865). REFERRED TO: 447

29 Victoria, c. 2. An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Contagious or Infectious Diseases in Cattle and Other Animals (20 Feb., 1866). REFERRED TO: 64

29 Victoria, c. 19. An Act to Amend the Law Relating to Parliamentary Oaths (30 Apr., 1866). REFERRED TO: 337

Index of Persons and Works

679

29 Victoria, c. 35. An Act for the Better Prevention of Contagious Diseases at Certain Naval and Military Stations (11 June, 1866). NOTE: superseded the first Contagious Diseases Act: 27 & 28 Victoria, c. 85. REFERRED TO: 388-9,411

29 & 30 Victoria, c. 121. An Act for the Amendment of the Law Relating to Treaties of Extradition (10 Aug., 1866). REFERRED TO: 116, 117, 122, 123, 543, 544-5, 554, 562, 570

30 Victoria, c. 6. An Act for the Establishment in the Metropolis of Asylums for the Sick, Insane, and Other Classes of the Poor, and of Dispensaries; and for the Distribution over the Metropolis of Portions of the Charge for Poor Relief; and for Other Purposes Relating to Poor Relief in the Metropolis (29 Mar., 1867). REFERRED TO: 334

30 & 31 Victoria, c. 102. An Act Further to Amend the Laws Relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales (15 Aug., 1867). NOTE: the Second Reform Act. REFERRED TO: 273, 282, 288, 291, 313, 317, 320, 336, 337, 338-9, 343, 346, 347, 355-6, 359, 368

30 & 31 Victoria, c. 146. An Act for Regulating the Hours of Labour for Children, Young Persons, and Women Employed in Workshops; and for Other Purposes Relating Thereto (21 Aug., 1867). REFERRED TO: 238,

354

31 & 32 Victoria, c. 109. An Act for the Abolition of Compulsory Church Rates (31 July, 1868). REFERRED TO: 337

32 & 33 Victoria, c. 42. An Act to Put an End to the Establishment of the Church of Ireland, and to Make Provision in Respect of the Temporalities Thereof, and in Respect of the Royal College of Maynooth (26 July, 1869). REFERRED TO: 382

32 & 33 Victoria, c. 96. An Act to Amend the Contagious Diseases Act, 1866 (11 Aug., 1869). REFERRED TO: 388-9,411 33 & 34 Victoria, c. 75. An Act to Provide for Public Elementary Education in England and Wales (9 Aug., 1870). NOTE: the references at 381-6 and 391-2 are to the Bill which, when enacted, became this statute. REFERRED TO: 381-6, 391-2, 397, 399-400, 401

FRENCH STATUTES Instruction de 1'Assemblee nationale, sur la contribution fonciere (22 and 23 Nov., 1790), Lois, et actes du gouvernement, II, 183-221. REFERRED TO: 442

Loi relative aux domaines nationaux, aux concessions et echanges qui ont etc faits, et aux apanages (1 Dec., 1790), Lois, et actes du gouvernement, II, 163-73. REFERRED TO: 442

Loi concemant la contribution fonciere (1 Dec., 1790), Lois, et actes du gouvernement, II, 173-83. REFERRED TO: 442

Decret de 1'Assemblee nationale du 13 Janvier 1791, sur la contribution mobiliere, Archives parlementaires, XXII (13 Jan., 1791), 169-72. REFERRED TO:

540

680

Appendix H

Code civil des Frangais. Paris: Imprimerie de la republique, 1804. REFERRED TO: 274

Code Napoleon. Bull. 154 bis, No. 2653 bis (3 Sept., 1807), Bulletin des his de I'empire frangais, 4th ser., Nos. bis. NOTE: separately paginated, 1-383, with index 1-80. The "Bulletins bis" are not included in their numerical places in the annual volumes, but are gathered, for each period, in a separate volume. REFERRED TO: 274

Code d'instructioncriminelle, Bull. 214 bis (17, 19 Nov., 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Dec., 1808), Bulletin des lois de Iempire franqais, 4th ser., Nos. bis. NOTE: separately paginated, 1-151, with index, 17-52. See note to Code Napoleon (1807). REFERRED TO: 115, 116, 117, 122 Code pe"nal, Bull. 277 bis, Nos. 1-7(12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 Feb., 1810), Bulletin des lois de I'empire frangais, 4th ser., Nos. bis. NOTE: separately paginated, 1-120, without index. See note to Code Napoleon (1807). REFERRED TO: 216

Loi sur 1'organisation du conseil general et des conseils d'arrondissement du departement de la Seine et sur 1'organisation municipale de la ville de Paris, Bull. 116, No. 262 (20 Apr., 1834), Bulletin des lois duroyaumede France, 9th ser., Pt. 1 (Lois), VI, 113-17. REFERRED TO: 533

IRISH STATUTES 38 George III, c. 19. An Act for Indemnifying Such Persons as Have Acted since the Third Day of July, in the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Seven, for the Preservation of the Public Peace, and Suppression of the Insurrections Prevailing in Some Parts of This Kingdom (6 Oct., 1798). NOTE: the quotation, which is not exact, is in a quotation from State Trials.

QUOTED: 111 REFERRED TO: 111

Index

TOWNS and constituencies mentioned incidentally are not indexed. References to the Appendices are in italics, and in parentheses when they duplicate those in the text, with Helen Taylor's fragment on War and Peace (Appendix F) signalled by "(HT)". ABYSSINIA, 332

Administration. See Civil Service Admiralty, 120 Alabama. See under United States of America America. See United States of America Anti-Corn Law League, 3 Aristocracy, ideal character of, 49. See also Classes, upper Armies: growth of in Europe, 129, 220-1, 222; aggressive nature of, 223; mismanagement in, 377 (607) Army, British: ideal, composed of citizens, 12930, 413-14; in Indian mutiny, 189; expenditure on, 220-1; reform of, 411-12, 414-15 Australia: social climbers of, 10; colonization of, 16; representation in, 210 BALLOT: JSM questioned about, 31, 40, 331, 340, 344; less objectionable in Ireland, 172 Bankrupts, law regarding, 187, 358 Belgium, 557, 552, 557 Bengal, government of, 234-5 Bishops, and House of Lords, 331 Board of Works. See Metropolitan Board of Works Borneo, 560 Bribery. See Elections Brighton, election (1868) at, 350-5 passim British Museum, 27 Brutality, domestic, insufficiently punished, 158-9, 272, 388, 403 CANADA, Fenian invasion of, 166-7 Capital: in co-operative movement, 7-8; and labour, 321-1; value of, 423, 429 Cattle: compensation for slaughter of, 47-52, 64 (607); trade in, 332

Centralization: and Poor Law, 143; and popular government, 395 Chamber of Deputies (French), procedure in, 266 Charity, 32 Chile, 553, 557 Cholera epidemic, 142 Christianity: and education, 4-5; and equality, 375 (605). See also Church of England Christ's Hospital, 159 Church, and state, 18, 38, 358 Church of England: in Ireland, 18, 26, 247-8, 277, 321, 325, 340, 356-7, 360-1, 3656; and rigidity of belief, 37-8; and education, 362, 381-5 (610-13) Civil service: combination of skilled administration in, with popular government, 34-5, 273, 291-2; competitive examinations in, 88 Civil war. See Rebellion, Revolution Civilization, progress of, 6/7 (HT). See also Spirit of the Age Classes: representation of in House of Commons, 30, 61-3 (600-2); mixing of in education, 393, 396, 397 upper: and sympathy with wealthy, 32-3; and lying, 35; and large families, 36; ability of English to pass reforms, 67; conservative role of, 127; Disraeli and, 149; power of in government, 416; country gentlemen of, 417 labouring: co-operation and, 6-9, 29, 354; inappropriateness of term "working classes" for, 28-9; enfranchisement of, 29-31, 39, 55-6, 59-69 (599-603), 88; education of, 31, 195, 199, 298-9, 378(608), 399, 400-1; representation of, 33, 42-3, 158, 184, 185, 198-200, 347; and lying, 35-6; and large families, 36; Gladstone and, 42, 58, 365; representation of on Trades' Union Commission, 133-4; and use made of

682

Index

Second Reform Bill, 320-1, 339; condition of agricultural, 352; and land ownership, 420-1,424,426-8,430-1 Coal, future exhaustion of British, 70-1 Cobden Club, 97 Colonies: Wakefield's plan for, 16; England's government of, 135-6; Irish in, 250 Commons. See Waste Lands Commons Preservation Society, 427 Conservatism, of agricultural interest, 127 Conservatives: and class theory of Constitution, 60-3 (600); and Coleridge's doctrine of land, 82; and stupidity, 85-6; and women's franchise, 93; and representation of minorities, 182-3, 211. See also Tories Constitution, British: class theory of, 61-3 (600); and women's franchise, 151-3, 403- 4; and right to public political meetings, 215-17 Contagious Diseases Acts, repeal of, 388-9, 411 Convents, 43 Co-operation: principles of, 6-7, 9; growth of, 7-9; JSM's contribution to, 29; Fawcett supports, 353-4, 355; and agricultural labourer, 421 Corn Laws. See App. H: 55 George III, c. 26; 3 George IV, c. 60; 7 & 8 George IV, c. 57; 9 & 10 Victoria, c. 22 Coventry, 63 (600) Crete, 214 Custom: and women's suffrage, 153; and law, 428 DEBT, law regarding. See Bankrupts Democracy: dangers of, 11, 291-2; and representation of minorities, 37, 182-5, 186; willing to correct errors, 66-7 (603); mentioned, 61, 374. See also Government, Representation Denmark: proportional representation in, 481; extradition from, 544-5 Dissenters: and religious education, 382-5 passim (610-13 passim) EAST INDIA COMPANY: use of knowledgeable people in, 135, 235-6; Court of Directors of, 297; and extradition, 567 Education: and religion, 3-5, 361-2, 381-5 (67073), 396, 397, 398, 399-400; of labouring classes, 31, 36, 67-8, 195, 199; Poor Law Commission and, 139, 394; for women, 156,157,159-60, 379 (608); technical, 21718; in Ireland, 252, 340; funding of, 2989, 349; inadequacy of English, 322; Fawcett on compulsory, 354; and political rights, 378 (608); centralization in, 391-6; impor-

tance of quality in, 396-401. See also Public Schools, Teaching Elections: power of money in, 10-11, 14-15, 24-5 (597-8), 32, 41, 44, 60 (599), 147-8, 196, 280, 317; under Hare's scheme, 12-13, 179-81, 209-10, 239-41, 409-11, 478-85; not guarantee of popular government, 164; measures against bribery and corruption at, 232, 262-5, 279-80, 300, 301-3, 306-10, 311-12, 314, 316-19, 326, 329-30, 343; municipal, 264, 265, 312, 316-17, 319, 343, 458; and registration of lodgers, 289; payment of expenses of, 304-5, 313, 326-8, 330-1, 342-3, 354; importance of, 323; to school boards, 396-400; private vs. public interest in, 405; local in London, 498, 505-8. See also Constitution, House of Commons, Reform, Representation, Suffrage, Westminster Embankment, building of Thames, 438-9 Enclosure. See Waste Lands Endowments: educational, 159, 298-9; reform of, 422 England: government of Ireland by, 52-4, 75-7, 172, 248-9, 251-4, 299, 357, 361, 366; dependence of on trade, 70; peculiarities of land system in, 76-7; and national freedom, 98; beauty of, 419 Entail. See Inheritance Equality: sexual, 286, 386; and women's suffrage, 374-5 (604-5), 380 (609); religious, 392 Eton, 290 Europe: land system in, 77; growth of armaments in, 129, 220-1, 222; growth of free trade in, 220 Examinations: competitive, 140; in public schools, 304 Exhibition of 1851,222 Extradition treaties: and political offences, 11718, 120-1, 122-3, 227-8, 545-8, 557-7 passim, 560, 562-3, 567-8; miscellaneous provisions for, 558-9, 560-7, 564-6 with America, 543, 549, 556 with Denmark, 554-5 with France: and taking of depositions, 115-17, 121-2, 228-9, 548, 553, 557, 558, 568-9; and political offences, 122-3, 550-4, 562, 567-8; renewal of (1867), 229; practical working of, 543-5, 549-50, 552, 570; mentioned, 119 FAMILY, as school of equality, 286 Fenians, punishment of, 165-7, 171-4, 188-90, 310, 315-16, 554-5; mentioned, 249 Flanders, peasant proprietors in, 261 France: agricultural reform in, 77-8; curtailment

Index of free speech in, 216; and right of search, 225; peasant proprietorship in, 25960; and free trade, 371-2; taxation in, 442; criminal law in, 555, 568-9, 570-1. See also Extradition, French Revolution Franchise. See Suffrage Frankfort, 481 Free speech, British right of, 215-17 Free trade: growth of, 97, 220, 371-2; and modern spirit, 375 (605) Freedom: national, 98, 129-30; importance of progress to, 128; connection of with law, 130-1; meaning of political, 154; and minority rights, 385 (612-13); value of, 676-77 (HT) French Revolution (1789): Reign of Terror in, 109-10; JSM's defence of, 131-2 GAME LAWS: and magistrates' bias, 199-200, 212-13; mentioned, 331. See also App. H: 22 & 23 Charles II, c. 25 (1671), 57 George III, c. 90 (1817), and 1 & 2 William IV, c. 32 Geneva, 186, 481 Glasgow, representation of, 281, 283 Government: Tory and Liberal conceptions of, 22-3 (596); and well-doing, 67, 299, 321-3 362-3; must be subject to law, 107-8, 204-5; guarantees of popular, 164; during revolutions, 211; women in, 377, 387-8; nature of popular, 395; and private interest, 402, 403; and ownership of land, 418-31 passim. See also Constitution, Democracy, Parliament, Reform, Representation local: shortcomings of vestries in, 138, 394, 455-6; advantages of vestries in, 163; importance of, 273-4; American, 524-8. See also London Great Britain, importance of naval power to, 220-7 Greenwich, elections at, 363-4, 366-7, 401 Grosvenor estates, 429 HOUSE OF COMMONS: need for labouring class representation in, 30, 33, 39, 42-3, 347; importance of, 66 (603); and public expenditure, 119-20; libel in publications of, 194; membership in involves duties, 196; rules of procedure in, 219, 266; moral atmosphere of, 297, 351, 359-60. See also Elections, Parliament, Reform, Representation, Suffrage House of Lords: reform of, 331; diminished power of, 337-8 House tax, 278 Human nature: improvement in, 403; and selfishness, 416

683

Hyde Park, reform meeting in, 96, 99-100, 1014, 114. See also Parks IMPROVEMENT: of labouring classes, 8-9, 42; Liberal vision of, 23 (596-7), 97-8; and population control, 36; contribution of manufacturing and commercial elements to, 1278; need for continuing, 128; importance of high aims in, 202-3; Tories and, 342, 345; and modern spirit, 375 (605); and private interest, 405. See also Reform India: and Straits Settlements, 135-6; suppression of Mutiny in, 189; Council of, 2336, 288-9, 296-7, 305-6; land in, 357; mentioned, 430, 567. See also East India Company Industrial sector: as source of improvement, 127-8; problems of rapid growth of, 321 Inheritance, laws of: evils of primogeniture in, 40, 346, 418; settlement and entail in, 418 Interest: of people paramount in America, 67; national, and war, 675 (HT) selfish: representation of in House of Commons, 33, 39, 65 (602), 158-9, 198; upheld by wives, 155-6, 157-8, 404-5; of ruling classes, 402, 403 International affairs. See Non-intervention Ireland: and disestablishment of Church, 18, 26, 247-8, 277, 321, 325, 340, 356-7, 3601, 365-6; suspension of habeas corpus in (1866), 52-4; English government of, 75-7, 248-9, 251-4, 299, 357, 361, 366; plans for land reform in, 77-83, 100, 247, 254-61, 357, 361; punishment of 1798 rebellion in, 111; ballot in, 172; general disaffection in (1866), 249-50; Reform Bill in (1868), 288; mentioned, 382 (670). See also Fenians Italy, 89, 55S-9, 577 JAMAICA: punishment of officials in, 91, 93-5, 105-13, 218; and execution of Gordon, 118; possible further disturbances in, 123-4; Goldwin Smith on, 130; mentioned, 54 Jews: and public education, 4-5; rights of, 337; mentioned, 38 Judges, bias of, 302, 310 Justice: and expediency, 152; and women's suffrage, 374 (604-5); and labouring classes, 424; mentioned, 113n LABOUR: value of, 28-9; relation of to capital, 321-2. See also Classes, labouring Lancashire: distress in, 31, 349; Gladstone and, 364, 366; mentioned, 127

684

Index

Lancaster Public School Association, 5 Land: peculiarities of English system of tenure of, 76-7; reform of Irish system of tenure of, 77-83, 100, 247, 252-3, 254-61, 357, 361, 366; right of property in, 81-2, 417; and conservatism, 127; taxation of, 277-8; unjust laws regarding, 416-18; state's ultimate ownership of, 418-20, 424, 425-6; owned by public bodies and endowed institutions, 422; taxation of unearned increase in rental value of, 422-3, 426, 428-30; in London, 438-9, 441-2, 443, 521, 540. See also Waste lands Land and Labour League, 418-19 Land Tenure Reform Association, 416-31 passim Landlords: and compound householders, 146, 168-9; poor representatives of agricultural labourers, 198-200; and lodger's goods, 357-8; power of, 416 Law: vindication of in Jamaica case, 107-8, 113; criminal and civil, 108-9; martial, 11013, 203-5; national differences in, and question of extradition, 115-17, 121-2, 228, 542-71; connection of with liberty, 1301, 227; and custom, 428 English: and trade unions, 144-5; favours men, 158-61, 285, 402-3; favourable to innocence, 271; favours rich, 416 international: and right of search, 221, 226; and duties of a neutral country in wartime, 243-5, 246; model for, 675-76 (HT) See also Punishment Libel, House of Commons publications and, 194 Liberals: James Mill and early struggles of, 15; beliefs of, 22-3 (596-7), 34-5, 45, 97-8; JSM's relation to, 320; and half-knowledge, 86; and Declaration of Paris, 222; position of in 1868 election, 335-70 passim; advanced vs. Palmerstonian, 350-1; and Gladstone, 364, 366; and land reform, 428. See also Political parties, Reform Liberty. See Freedom Libraries, public, 395 London: Hare's scheme applied to, 13, 242, 478-85; Poor Law administration in, 137-8, 141-3, 463-5; reform of government of, 162-5, 230-1, 273-6, 290-5, 301, 349-50, 437-542 passim; representation of, 197-8, 201; land ownership in, 422, 438-9, 441-2, 443, 521, 540; taxation in, 439-42, 443-4, 473, 474-5, 512-18 passim; 539-40; public health in, 457, 462-3, 497, 500, 509, 529-31, 540-1 London National Society for Women's Suffrage, 373-4 (604), 379-80 (609), 386

London School Board, 396-401 passim London Society for Promoting Co-operation, 6 Lying, among lower classes, 35-6 MAGISTRATES: and extradition, 116, 121-2; prejudices of country, 199-200, 212-13; functions of, 456-7 Malta, 559, 577 Manchester, 132 Manufacturing. See Industrial sector Marriage: with deceased wife's sister, 26; new companionship in, 155, 405; injustice in laws of, 285-6 Martial law. See under Law Marylebone, 293, 458, 493 Massachusetts, 33 Maynooth grant, 18, 31 Medical officers, of poor law, 139-41 Medicine, women in, 159-60, 377-8 (607-5) Men: influence of wives on, 155-6, 157-8, 4045; dominance of in laws, 158-61; contrasted with women as rulers, 387-8 Metropolitan Board of Works: work and powers of, 163, 274, 275, 294, 295, 438-9, 455; election to, 472, 505-6; attendance at, 538; mentioned, 230, 231, 476 Money: power of in elections, 10-11, 14-15, 24-5 (597-8), 32, 41, 44, 60 (599), 147-8, 196, 280, 317; women's management of, 154, 377 (g.6-7) Morality: as triumph over natural propensities, 36; influence of wives on, 155-6, 157-8, 404-5; women's strength in, 389, 390 Murder: and suppression of rebellion, 91; and political assassination, 117-18, 545-7, 550, 551-4, 555-6, 567-8; capital punishment for, 266-72 Music, sacred, 192-3 Mutiny Act. See App. H: 19 Victoria, c. 10 (1856) NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS* UNION, 431

National Association for the Promotion of Social Science, 11,284,391 National character, English, 36 National debt, importance of paying off, 70-2 National Education League, 392, 393 National Public School Association, 3-5 Nature, and subjection of women, 407 Navy, British, importance of, 220-7, 412-13 Non-intervention, 17, 39, 214 OXFORD UNIVERSITY, progress of reform in, 132-3

Index PARIS: hospitals of, 140; municipal government of, 533, 534 Parks: right of political meetings in, 215-17, 237-8; utility of, 419. See also Hyde Park Parliament: duration of, 43, 332; pledges and choice of members of, 323-4; payment for members of, 347; effect of women's suffrage on, 387-8; landlords in, 416. See also Elections, House of Commons, Reform, Representation, Suffrage Peace, meaning of, 616-17 (HT) Peasant proprietorship, benefits of, 259-61 Philanthropy, 266-7, 374 (605) Pig, Irishman's, distinguished from Disraeli's, 345-6 Political economy, nature of, 255-6 Political meetings: British right to hold public, 99-100, 215-17, 237-8; as demonstrations, 103-4 Political offences: extradition for, 117-18, 1201, 122-3, 227-8, 542-71; punishment of, 165-7, 172-3, 189-90 Political parties: role of in choosing candidates, 12, 178-9; and representation, 181-2, 208-9, 241-2. See also Conservatives, Liberals, Tories Politics: women in, 153-4; role of passions in, 428 Poor Law: and hospital districts, 136-8, 141-3; and appointment of guardians, 138, 141; and education of paupers, 139, 394; and medical officers, 139-41, 378 (607-8); administration of, 312, 322, 324, 334, 340, 349, 358; women as administrators of, 376-7 (606-7); in London, 463-5 Population, effect of on wages, 36 Portman estates, 429 Post Office, 304-5 Posterity, importance of considering, 72-3 Power: women's indirect, 157-8, 404-5; and selfish objects, 402, 416 Press: advantages of cheap, 31; use of in elections, 240, 304-5, 318; and security system, 287 Primogeniture. See under Inheritance Progress. See Improvement Property: popular respect for, 83; of married women, 160-1, 283-6, 379 (609); and expropriation, 256-7; fluctuations in value of, 422-3; rights of, 425. See also Land Prussia: peasant proprietors in, 259; army of, 412-15 passim Public health: importance of improving, 322, 362; in London, 451, 462-3, 497, 500, 509, 529-31, 540-1

685

Public houses, regulation of, 31, 191, 339-40, 344, 357 Public opinion: role of in moral improvement, 36; role of in popular government, 395 Public schools: government of, 290; endowments of, 298-9; examinations in, 304 Publicity, importance of, 142-3, 164, 293-4 Punishment: capital, 27, 266-72; corporal, 53; of brutality, 158-9, 272, 388, 403; of political offences, 165-7, 172-3, 189-90; ineffectiveness of present, 272; for debt, 358. See also Law RADICALS: in 1839, 29; political agitation natural to, 147-8; Fawcett and, 353; and Gladstone, 364 Railway carriages, smoking in, 328, 333 Reading (of books), value of, 395, 399 Rebellion, suppression of, 111-12. See also Jamaica, Political offences Reform, parliamentary: JSM's commitment to, 15-17, 21, 30; combination of with skilled administration, 34-5, 273, 291-2; Earl Russell and, 57; Gladstone and, 57-8, 356, 360, 365; in Scotland, 281-3; in Ireland, 288 1866 Bill: popular demand for, 54-6; tactics during debate on, 56-7, 59-61 (599), 68, 84, 87-9, 90; and enfranchisement of labouring classes, 59-69 (599-603); defeat of, 87, 89-90 1867 Bill: tactics in debate on, 143, 145; and compound householders, 146-51, 167-70, 175-6; and women's suffrage, 161; Liberal responsibility for, 170-1, 355-6; and representation of minorities, 176-7, 186-7, 211; and payment of election expenses, 194-6; and redistribution, 197-201; and candidates' committees, 205-6; and use of voting papers, 232; results of, 320-4, 336, 338-9, 359, 368 See also Constitution, Elections, Hyde Park, Improvement, Representation Reform League, 101-2, 114, 219. SeealsoHyde Park Religion: and education, 3-5, 381-5 (610-13), 392, 396, 397, 398, 399-400; and population principle, 36; JSM declines to answer questions about his own, 38; and Sunday observance, 43, 191-2; and influence of clergy on women, 389-90. See also Christianity, Church of England Rent, and property taxes, 439-42. See also Land Representation: of minorities, 12-13, 21 (595), 37, 62, 84-5, 176-87, 207-11, 239-42, 281, 347, 409-11; of labouring classes, 33,

686

Index

42-3, 158, 184, 185, 198-200, 320, 347; theory of virtual, 158-9; of towns, 197-8, 200-1; of agricultural labourers, 198-200; and taxation, 403-4. See also Elections, House of Commons, Reform, Suffrage Representative Reform Association, 397 Revolution: justification of, 166; government during, 211. See also Rebellion Revolution of 1688, 417 Right of search, 221-7, 412-13 Rights, and expediency, 152 Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, 29 Roman Catholic Church, in Ireland, 277 Royal Academy of Art, 160 Russia, emancipation of serfs in, 257 ST. PANCRAS, vestry of, 394, 494-7, 498 Sanitary Commission (U.S.), 406 Sanitation. See Public health Scotland: reform in, 281-3; education in, 399; women in, 409; mentioned, 166 Sexual relations, modern revolution in, 155, 405 Slavery: attitude of English upper classes to, 323; abolition of, 372, 379-80 (609); mentioned, 130, 268 Smoking (tobacco), 328, 333 Social Science Association. See National Association for the Promotion of Social Science Society of Apothecaries, 159-60 Spirit of the age: innovative and improving, 1856; destructive, 222; and women's suffrage, 374-5 (605), 378-9 (60S); hostile to privilege, 407 Stanley estates, 429 Straits Settlements, government of, 135-6 Suffrage: women's, 21 (595) 39, 91-3, 151-62, 373-80 (604-9), 386-91, 402-7; and labouring classes, 29-31, 39, 55-6, 59-69 (599-603), 88, 339; and compound householders, 146-51, 167-70, 175-6; mentioned, 43. See also Representation Sunday, recreations on, 27, 31, 38, 43, 190-3, 324, 340, 357 Switzerland, 413 TAXATION: of stimulants, 31; of incomes, 43, 279; for cattle disease compensation, 489, 50-3; reasonable state of (1866), 71-2; and national debt, 72; and representation, 152-3, 403-4; of houses or of land, 277-9; of land, 417, 422-3, 426, 428-30, 439-42

local: in France, 442', in London, 439-42, 443-4, 473, 474-5, 512-18 passim, 53940; in the U.S.A., 522-4

Teaching: women and, 375-6 (606), 401; art of, 400 Temperance leagues, 27 Test Acts. See App.H: 25 Charles II, c.2, and 30 Charles II, 2nd sess., c. 1. Tithes, in Ireland, 252 Tories: beliefs of, 22-3 (596), 34-5; of Westminster (1865), 24-6 (598), 45;and Stafford Northcote, 88; foreign policy of, 89; and electoral corruption, 147, 32931; and Declaration of Paris, 222; in 1868 election campaign, 335-70 passim; and land reform, 428. See also Conservatives, Political parties Tower Hamlets, 459-90 Towns: representation of, 197-8, 200-1; sanitation of, 322, 362 Tractarians, 37-8 Trade unions: Commission on, 133-4; and the law, 144-5, 341; mentioned, 344 Truth, precautions against half-, 64 (601-2) Turkey, 213-14 ULSTER, 261

United States of America: British support for slaveholders in, 32-3; representative democracy in, 39, 183, 210, 379-80; teachableness of people in, 66-7 (603); and invasion of Canada, 166-7; merchant shipping of, 224; naval disputes with in War of 1812, 226; and Alabama reparations, 2436; Irish in, 250; free trade in, 372; education in, 376 (606), 392, 399; women in, 406; land in, 429; municipal government in, 522-9; and extradition, 543, 549, 556 Civil War in: army in, 129, 414; and Goldwin Smith, 130; beneficial results of, 202-3; Sanitary Commission in, 406 WAGES, and population, 36 War: resurgence of in Europe, 222-3; should not exempt commerce, 223-5; avoidance of, 6/5-7 7 (HT) War of 1812, 226 Waste lands: enclosure of, 74, 417, 420-1, 4268; state should administer for the people, 419-21 Westminster: JSM as candidate for, 13-15, 1922 (594-6), 28, 32, 41, 44-5, 320, 335, 339, 342, 347-8; moneyed Tory candidature in, 24-6 (597-9); JSM as member for, 89-90; originated local government plan, 163, 165; local government of, 293; JSM's defeat at, 369-70

Index Women: arguments for suffrage of, 21 (595), 39, 91-3, 151-62, 373-80 (604-9), 386-91, 402-7; property of married, 283-6; in education, 401. See also Marriage

Work. See Labour Working Classes. See Classes, labouring

687