said, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, although he believed there would be no opposition made, he thought it might be advisable to say a few words in explanation of its purposes. He took it for granted that the necessity of legislation on this subject was universally admitted. This was not questioned even by those who objected to the measure. By the common law any person was entitled to practice medicine, provided he was competent, and a number of statutes had been passed from the time of Henry VIII., regulating the powers of the bodies entitled to decide this question of competency. The law, however, were now in an unsatisfactory condition, and required revision, and if there were any objection to such a revision anywhere, it probably arose from those persons who were not members of the medical profession, but who wished to be supposed to belong to it—the class of uneducated ignorant quacks who practised on the credulity of the public, and who hoped, in the present disorganized, anomalous, and chaotic state of the profession to pass for what they were not. There were three objects Which all the persons who had prepared Bills on this subject had kept in view. These were—1. To raise to a uniform and sufficient standard the education and acquirements of all persons who entered the medical profession. 2. To have an authoritative register, accessible to ordinary persons, clearly defining those who have attained the prescribed qualification. 3. The removal of all those local jurisdictions which restricted a competent man from practising in any other part of the country than that in which the licensing body which passed him had authority—these three objects should be sought in conjunction. The attempt to secure any one of them singly, would be mischievous instead of beneficial. if registration and an extension of area only were adopted, a temptation would be created to the smaller bodies to compete with the larger by lowering the standard, candidates might prefer the easiest examination instead of that in the highest repute, if it gave them equal rights; and the corporations which got the fewest fees might be tempted to increase them by indulgence in passing. The University of St. Andrews was accused at one time of giving a degree on the mere payment of fees; that was now altered, but the smaller bodies ought not to have unlimited right of licensing unless security was taken that the education was of a sufficiently high standard. The Council proposed by his Bill, would fill the functions of visitors to the existing licensing bodies, and ensure efficiency of teaching and examination. It had been objected that if the tests of education were raised, the supply of medical men would become insufficient. He believed that was an unfounded apprehension; on the contrary, at present there were more young men entering the profession than could gain a livelihood by it. Provision was made in the Bill for improvement of the examinations, by enacting that the Council should decide whether the examination was sufficient to entitle a candidate to his license. The constitution of the Council would be such as to guard against any suspicion of undue or improper partiality; it would be elected by the different examining bodies, so that if any injustice were complained of as having been done to one of these examining bodies, it would have a representative on the Council to defend it or offer such explanations as might be required; and in the event of the Council being suspected of unfairness or error, an appeal would lie to the Privy Council in the last resort. With regard to the registry, some difficulties had been raised, and he understood that the objection to it on the part of the College of Physicians was, that it did not sufficiently distinguish between physicians and other members of the medical profession. This Bill did not define physicians, but it proposed to extend the power now possessed by the Universities, the Apothecaries, and other societies, of coming under the general term "practising medicine," to persons who were registered under the Bill. He did not believe that it was possible by law to erect physicians into a distinct class, separate from the remainder of the profession; because their position was one which had not been created by law, the position of a consulting physician being, in fact, created by the general opinion of the public who required his services. The term was applied to those who did not practise pharmacy or surgery and who were called in in difficult cases. That position would in no respect be effected by the Bill; consequently he could not see that physicians would, on this account, have any reason to complain. If, however, the plan were adopted, which they themselves had recommended, of providing that every person who wanted to practise medicine should belong to the College of Physicians, the result would be to lower the status of that branch of the profession by the admission of inferior men. So far as any of the privileges they enjoyed under their charter were concerned, the Bill would in no way interfere with them. The Colleges of Surgeons represented that the measure would occasion a diminution in their resources, but that, he thought was an unfounded apprehension. He believed that a large portion of the revenues of the colleges was derived from examinations, but he could not see why the number of those examinations should fall off. Upwards of a hundred petitions had been presented to the House from members of the medical profession in favour of the Bill, and, up to last week, one only against it. He contended, therefore, that the great bulk of the profession, consisting of surgeons and apothecaries, approved of the Bill; that it met their views of medical reform; and that it was calculated to be a benefit to the public at large by securing an improved class of medical practitioners, by removing the anomalies and local impediments which prevented the best men in the profession from moving to any part of the country without let or hindrance, and by securing a register from which the public might learn who were the properly qualified men. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman moved the second reading of the Bill.

said, he should oppose the Bill. During the last twenty years a vast number of medical Bills had been brought forward by Members of great influence in the House, and not less than five during the three years he had had the honour of a seat in the House. But up to that moment all attempts at legislation had failed; and looking at the nature of the materials with which they had to deal, he had come to the conclusion that the question of medical reform was an impracticable one. On main object of all the Bills was to provid a register of qualified practitioners. They would have a volume of 500 or 600 pages, with a number of names in it, some with three or four, and some with six initials appended. But the public would not derive the least advantage from that, and the House was not, perhaps, aware that there was already a register published by Mr. Churchill, the medical publisher, which contained the names of all duly qualified medical practitioners. Another thing which the Bill proposed to effect was, that education should be provided for up to a certain standard; but that was done already by the education now required by the medical corporations. And then it should be remarked that none of the Bills proposed to do away with quacks. The Morisons and the Holloways would still flourish, as, he supposed, likewise would that other quack who bore the appropriate name of Coffin. In his opinion the best medical Bill that could now be introduced was one not to add to the legislation upon the subject, but to repeal all Acts hitherto passed which had given a monopoly to the body of physicians in London, and placed restrictions upon the other branches of the profession. If that monopoly and those restrictions were abolished, he believed that the parties who were now engaged in fighting with one another would be perfectly well satisfied at the results. Give them a "fair field and no favour." That was the best course which could be adopted. If, however, out of the three medical Bills lying upon the table they were to choose one, he should certainly prefer that which was promoted by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), for the simple reason that it contained fewer restrictions than the others. What he would propose was that the whole of these Bills should be thrown overboard.

then put the question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

said, No, six months.

declared the Motion carried.

observed, that he understood the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) to say "no," when the right hon. Gentleman put the question. There must be some mistake.

said, he was sitting close by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and had his ears open to catch what was said; but as he had not heard the hon. Gentleman say "no," it was most unlikely to have reached the Speaker's ear.

said, he had been sitting further off than the right hon. Gentleman, and he certainly did hear the word "no" from the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

said, there had been clearly a mistake on the part of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, but that was no reason why he need suffer, and upon the Motion for reading the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury he could assert the principle he was anxious to maintain in dealing with this question.

said, he believed he had not acted in strict accordance with the rules of the House; but he had concluded his observations with the remark that he proposed all these medical Bills should be thrown overboard. He had also said "no" when the question was put.

observed, that he distinctly heard the hon. Member make the remark to which he alluded; but when the question was put, as the hon. Member failed to say "No" at the proper time, he was obliged by the forms of the House to declare the second reading carried. The question now before the House was, when the Bill should be committed.

then moved that the Bill be committed on Tuesday, the 8th inst.

said, he would move as an amendment, that it be committed on that day six months.

said, that great inconvenience arose out of the present system of rivalry between the various medical bodies. Judging from the tone of his observations he could not conceive that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) had read either of the Bills before the House. These Bills had been well considered in the various medical corporations, and their principles had received general assent. His experience had been large, and he could solemnly assert that no Bill had ever been before the House on the subject of medical reform which had received a more general assent from the profession. He did not think that this subject had ever received from the House that consideration its importance demanded; and, further, he thought that if the present measure received their approbation, it would tend to elevate the profession and secure a more efficient body of practitioners.

said, perhaps it might be convenient if he was to state the views of the Government on the three Bills now before the House. This question of medical reform, as it was called, had been for a long time under the attention of the Legislature, and for some reason it had been found difficult to bring the matter to a distinct head, so that the House could see its way to adopt one of the different Bills which had from time to time been submitted to it. One reason perhaps why the House had failed to do this was, that no definite plan, either with reference to the evils complained of or the remedies to be applied, had been proposed which had met with general concurrence. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman now under discussion, and the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), all contained principles worthy of adoption; yet in each there were some points to which the House ought not to assent. The difficulties of the case were these:—In the first place, they were dealing with a subject the law regarding which was founded on circumstances which were inapplicable to the times in which we lived. In the second place, in consequence of their dealing with a subject founded on laws in many respects so obsolete, they were involved in many anomalies—and, he might say, many absurdities—with regard to the privileges conferred either on medical bodies or on bodies who had the power of conferring medical degrees—a power that either could not be exercised at this moment, or, if exercised, could not be exercised in a manner advantageous to the community. A third difficulty was this—that, in trying to get rid of these anomalies and absurdities, they were called upon to deal with interests and claims of so opposite and conflicting a character, that in endeavouring to satisfy one they found tehy were totally unable to satisfy another. The House, in trying to deal with this question, had found itself entangled in so many difficulties, that even his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), with all his weight and authority in the House, and supported by one of the most powerful Governments which had been seen for years, found that he was unable to conquer those difficulties, and to frame a measure which would be acceptable. Then the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) took great pains to succeed, and although he succeeded so far in Committee up stairs as to induce the Members of the Committee to frame a Bill which they thought would be a settlement of the question, he found, to his astonishment, when the Bill was brought down to the House and the discussion recommenced, the Members of the Committee were so embarrassed by the different views set before them, that they actually branched off in different directions and took different sides on matters as to which they had been unanimously agreed in Committee. These circumstances must be his apology why he, on the part of the Government, was unwilling to undertake the question. It was not from want of consideration. He had turned it over in every point of view, and he came to the conclusion that the best thing he could do was to point out as well as he could the different evils of which the community had a right to complain, to draw attention to the different modes by which those evils might be got rid of, and then to see, with reference to the different Bills now before the House, how far they applied the proper remedies. The first great evil, going back to the original state of the law, was that they started as it were from a wrong point. They found the medical profession not in the hands of those who were most competent, but they found that through the middle ages the matter had got into the hands of the ecclesiastical authorities. Those authorities were unwilling to undertake the surgical part of the profession, but they maintained power and authority over the physicians. Hence arose the separation of those two branches of the profession. By means of the Act of Henry VIII. a medical corporation, with powers of exclusive authority within seven miles of London, was created, while the Universities inherited from the ecclesiastical authorities the power of conferring degrees giving a privilege to practise over all parts of the country. Thus they began as it were upon a wrong basis, and they had the anomaly introduced of different bodies in different parts of the kingdom having the power to give licenses to practise. They had the College of Physicians, established in 1511. They had the College of Surgeons, established at a subsequent period, more or less connected with the Corporation of Barbers, and not finally dissevered from that body till the reign of George II., and then, by means of their charter in 1800 and 1843, getting a power which they had admirably exercised of granting diplomas, answering, he believed, all the purposes of their noble institution. Thus they had an authority vested in the College of Surgeons; but that authority was not an exclusive authority which could be enforced in law, like that of the College of Physicians. And they had at this moment this absurd state of things—that by the law, if a surgeon were to prescribe for a fever, he was liable to a penalty; but if he prescribed in reference to a matter of a surgical operation, he was no longer liable to a penalty. At the same time, in Scotland, they had the Universities of St. Andrews, of Aberdeen, and of Glasgow, with a power of conferring degrees which extended over the whole kingdom, and not excepting the area of the capital, because the College of Physicians in Edinburgh had not that exclusive authority which was possessed by the College of Physicians in London. He might show that the rivalry between those colleges, in conferring degrees, led to nominal or worse than nominal examinations. Another point of difference between the two countries consisted in the fact, that in England they had surgeons distinct from apothecaries, while they had in Scotland surgeons and apothecaries combined; and they had colleges of physicians and surgeons, some of them with a limited jurisdiction confined to particular counties, and some of them with a jurisdiction supposed to extend over the whole kingdom; so that they had Scotland with a medical law totally different from that of England. Then if they went to Ireland they found that the Dublin University had the same kind of privilege that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge possessed; and in addition, the new Queen's Colleges at Cork and Belfast, affiliated to the Queen's University, had conferred on them the same privileges as those possessed by the Universities in England, without defining what those privileges were, or there being any statement of what the meaning of those words might be; and at this moment he did not know whether, by means of those privileges, the new colleges in Ireland affiliated to the Queen's University had not the power of granting to their graduates licenses to practise in other parts of the kingdom besides Ireland. That was a doubtful point; but, doubtful point or not, it was one of those points that could not be sustained much longer. The inference which he wished to draw was this—that instead of continuing this anomalous state of things, instead of preserving an exclusive privilege in one part of the kingdom to the detriment of another, the public should have the right of calling in such adviser as they believed to be the best; and the first great principle that he should submit to the House was that there should be reciprocity of practice in all parts of the United Kingdom. The second point was this—that by the law as it at present stood they had a difficulty in ascertaining who were by law licensed practitioners. Some kind of register therefore ought to be formed, but when they had done this, this register would not indicate to the public whether the party was a duly qualified person to practise. The second point they had to establish therefore was not a mere register of names of persons calling themselves practitioners, but they must endeavour to indicate to the public whether the qualifications possessed by those persons were of such a character that they were entitled to hold themselves out as practitioners. He mentioned that because it would be seen by some of the Bills that different modes had been attempted of ascertaining the fact, whether the persons registered were entitled to practise or not. The third point was, that if they were to have a register of duly qualified practitioners, they must have some authority to supervise and control, and thus they arrived at what was a common provision of all the Bills before them—a Council of some kind. The question then arose, how was that Council to be constituted? One scheme was that the different medical practitioners, or the bodies who had the power of conferring medical degrees, should elect the Council; another proposition was that the Council should be nominated partly by the medical corporations and partly by the Crown. He thought that the latter, which was that proposed by the Bill of the right hon. Member for Hertford, was the best, because a Board so formed would have the confidence of the different medical corporations, and would provide also for the best interests of the public at large as well as secure that principle of permanence and unity of purpose which was not to be looked for in bodies wholly representative, and therefore constantly changing. If they confined medical reform, as it was called, to these three points—reciprocity of practice, a register of ascertained duly qualified practitioners, and a supervising council—they might accomplish their object without causing a great disurbance in the profession, which would not easily be allayed. If he was right in that, he would venture to call the attention of the House to the mode in which these three Bills differed on this point. First, as to reciprocity. He took the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe's) Bill, and he found that in the 17th clause he gave the complete right to practise in any part of Her Majesty's dominions to all who were entitled to practise in any particular part. That clause in the Bill, therefore, he thought completely recognized one of the principles which he thought should be established. He then took up the Bill of his noble Friend, and he found that reciprocity of practice, and something more, was conferred by the 28th section. [Lord ELCHO dissented.] His noble Friend shook his head, but, as he (Mr. Walpole) understood, that section, it gave to every registered licentiate in medicine or surgery a right to practise in medicine, surgery, midwifery, and pharmacy, in every part of the United Kingdom. That provision confounded and blended together the licenses given by the different authorities instead of keeping them distinct. That would be a very detrimental change rather than an improvement, as it would destroy the rivalry between the holders of different diplomas. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) also contained a reciprocity clause—the 26th, which simply provided that every person registered might practise medicine or surgery, or medicine and surgery. All the Bills therefore agreed on this point. He came then to the second question—the question of the register. The Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) provided for a register, no doubt; but it was one in which any person who chose might have his name entered. There was to be no examination, and the public would have no security for the qualifications of the practitioners. The Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) provided for two examinations before registration—one by a preliminary, the other by a professional Board; but it was objectionable, as establishing complete uniformity of examination for all branches of the profession. The result would be a low standard of examination instead of an elevated one. The right hon. Member (Mr. Cowper's) Bill aimed at giving distinct powers to the several examining bodies; but it inserted the words "subject to the Council," which would have the same effect of bringing the standard down to a minimum. As to the third point—the Council—the hon. Member for Finsbury's (Mr. T. Duncombe) Bill provided for no Council at all, but the substitute proposed was such that it would throw the apple of discord amongst all the existing bodies. The noble Lord's (Lord Elcho's) Bill proposed an entirely new Council of twelve members, whose president was to be the President of the Board of Health—a Board which was now extinct. He did not think that the composition of this Council would be satisfactory to the existing bodies. The best Council was that proposed in Mr. Cowper's Bill, but the powers given to the Council were too large—they were, in fact, enormous; they would be able to overrule the independent action of the Universities and the existing medical bodies, thus destroying the benefit now derived from the rivalry of those bodies, and reducing them all to a dead level of a poor, meagre mediocrity. But making due provision for the three points he had noticed, they would do more for the benefit of the public, the elevation of the profession, and the satisfaction of the existing medical bodies, than by pursuing any other course. He suggested that they should take Mr. Cowper's Bill as the basis of their legislation on the subject, and duly consider the details in Committee. As he had already intimated, he thought that the form of Council proposed by the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) which was a mixture of medical representatives with nominees of the Crown, was the best. But he must ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider two points in his Bill; the one was the enormous power given to the Council, which he feared would defeat the independent action of the medical bodies; and the other was that there was no provision for keeping alive the distinct and separate action of those bodies. He had ventured to trouble the Committee with these observations because, having given the subject his consideration, he had thought it would be of advantage to the Committee to be informed of his views with respect to it. He thought that there were three points which they might well adopt—reciprocity of practice; a registry of duly-qualified practitioners; and the establishment of an authority, constituted partly on the representative principle, and partly by the nomination of persons permanently resident in the metropolis who might watch over the regulations made by the Council. If they agreed to do that they would reconcile conflicting interests and would give a greater degree of general confidence to the public than they would do if they left matters as they were. Though not so extensive a reform as some might desire, be believed it would elevate the profession, give satisfaction to the public, would be a safe and prudent step to take, and would not introduce any serious impediment in the way of any further legislation which it might be found necessary to adopt. If his suggestions were approved of, he should he glad to give every consideration to the details of them in Committee. He therefore wished to ask the hon. Member for Finsbury and the noble Member for Haddingtonshire whether it would not be better to take the Bill before the House as the Bill on which some such measure as that which he had pointed out should be constructed? If they were of that opinion, perhaps they would be able in Committee to introduce such alterations into the Bill as they all had in view, and so give the House a chance of at last coming to some decision on the question.

said, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in some respects, with much pleasure, and to none of the principles laid down by the Right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech had he any material objection. He should, however, have preferred if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of appealing to the hon. Members for Finsbury, Hertford, and Haddington, to take up the question, had said that he himself would introduce clauses based on the principles which he himself had laid down. [Mr. WALPOLE: I have no objection to do so]. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. The medical profession had too much cause to complain of the course which former Governments bad taken on this question; for though they had admitted the defects in the present system, they had not only declined to remedy them, but had even interfered with independent Members in their endeavours to do so. The present uncertain state of the law had necessarily led to conflicting interests; but he believed that there was a general desire among the medical profession and the licensing bodies themselves that that uncertainty should be removed. Acting in accordance with their views he had introduced a Bill last Session, which was read a second time by a large majority; and he was only prevented carrying it by the opposition of the then Government. Nevertheless he would not retaliate, but would be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford every assistance in his power in modifying his Bill so as to render it acceptable to the public and the profession. He was, therefore, ready to consent to go into Committee on the Bill on some future day. He thought that legislation on the three cardinal points mentioned by the Right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) would be received with approbation. There was considerable unanimity of opinion in the medical profession as to the reciprocity of practice, and the expediency of establishing as good an education as could be obtained, with an examination which would be at the same time a satisfactory test of proficiency, without being so high as to discourage persons from entering the profession, and so increasing the number of unlicensed practitioners. A Bill, therefore, limited chiefly to these points would stand a better chance of being passed this Session than any more extensive measure. Their aim ought to be, having remedied the practical defects of the present system, to interfere as little as possible with other parts of it. One of his objections to the three Bills was, that they were based on individual theories, which had no chance of being accepted by the country. As far as he was concerned, he was perfectly ready now to vote for going into Committee on the Bill.

said, he thought the Right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had very fairly pointed out the difficulties, anomalies, and imperfections of the three Bills on the subject before them. Having done that, he thought the right hon. Gentleman, instead of trying to amend one of the Bills by the introduction of certain clauses, was bound to bring in a Bill of his own. Under the circumstances he should certainly withdraw his Bill, and leave the field open to the Government. As the matter now stood it was clear that all their discussions were a waste of time, and that nothing would be done in the matter this Session. His own Bill, he must say, he thought was at least a step in the way of what had been called medical reform. It established a registry, and gave free practice as a consequence of registry; but the question of medical education was attended with so many difficulties that he scarcely thought the House could be induced to come to any agreement on it. The question of the granting of diplomas was equally difficult. At present, though the examination of the London University was admittedly the best, those who held its diplomas could not practise within seven miles of St. Paul's. The fact was, the whole question was one of fees. Every one practising in London had to pay ten guineas to the College of Apothecaries or the College of Physicians; in the country, it was only six guineas. The charters of these bodies had been granted by Henry VIII. to gratify the caprice of some of his mistresses; and their operation was a nuisance to everybody in London and seven miles round it. He had seen so much of the jealousies and bickerings of the profession that he was not surprised at the unwillingness of the Government to touch the subject. A register such as that proposed by his Bill was the chief thing needed; and as for the medical reform in general, there could not be a worse tribunal in the House of Commons to judge and decide on it. If they stuck to political reforms and clerical reforms there would be work enough, but he would advise them to have nothing to do with the doctors. He therefore thought they ought to leave the public to take care of themselves in medical matters. Of course his Bill and that of the noble Lord opposite would fall to the ground. He should certainly never again attempt to legislate on the subject.

said, he would rather see a portion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) pass than no Bill at all. That Bill did away with local jurisdiction, and established reciprocity of practice. On the other hand, the registry proposed by the hon. Member would only be a registry of persons who had passed examinations according to the present system, and would give no security that persons placed on it were thoroughly qualified for the profession. It would, in fact, simply be an official Medical Directory. His (Lord Elcho's) own Bill, so far from being based on a theory of his own, embodied the recommendations of a Select Committee, which were made almost unanimously. There were at present twenty-one licensing bodies—eleven universities, nine corporations, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. With regard to the Bill which had been introduced last year by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle, the manner in which it proposed to carry out his principles was most objectionable. It benefited the corporations by doing gross injustice to the Universities. The great object was to establish an efficient examining body, and by that means to improve the medical education of the country. In legislating with that view, one of the chief things to be guarded against was the rendering too stringent the powers of these corporations; and he would warn the House against the efforts which those bodies would be certain to make to carry out their aim when the Bill got into Committee. After referring to the leading provisions of the several measures before the House the noble Lord said that his object in introducing a Bill with respect to the medical profession had not been that he might attach his name to a measure of medical reform, but that he might prevent another proposition from becoming law which he believed would have been most unjust in its operation. Recognizing in the Bill of the right hon. Member for Hertford the principle of sound medical reform, and believing that it would have a better chance of passing than his own Bill, he should withdraw the measure which stood in his name, and should be happy to render all the assistance in his power in perfecting the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. In the event of no Bill being passed this year he suggested to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he should issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject.

said, he could not but express his satisfaction at the turn the discussion had taken. He was glad to find that the three Bills were to be merged in one, and that the Government had consented to support a Bill combining the best portions of these conflicting measures.

said, he would congratulate the House on the prospect of a settlement of this long-vexed question. If the Bill should be confined to the three points which had been adverted to by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, it would embrace a comprehensive and valuable Amendment to the existing law.

said, he acquiesced in the withdrawal of the Bill of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho).

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

suggested that it would be much more convenient to withdraw it.

said, he thought it would be better to read the Bill a second time, and let it proceed pari passu with the other, for no one could tell what mishap might befall it.

suggested that the hon. Member for Finsbury should postpone the second reading.

said, he rose to move that the House should resolve itself into the said Committee on that day six months. He ought perhaps to offer some explanation to the House with respect to the time at which he brought forward the Motion. He was aware that it would have been more in accordance with the usual practice if he had opposed the further progress of the measure on the second reading; but he believed he could show the House that no blame could fairly attach to him for a departure upon the present occasion from the general custom. He had a right to anticipate that the second reading of the Bill would have been opposed by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at present occupying the Treasury bench, as well as by their predecessors in office. But as he had been disappointed in that expectation he had felt that he could not, with any chance of obtaining a full and fair discussion of the subject, have opposed the second reading upon the occasion on which it was carried. The Motion had at that time been successful solely because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had abdicated the position they had formerly maintained, and had, for some reason or another, which he did not pretend to be able to explain, thought proper to deal with the subject with an eye to expediency, rather than principle. He was opposed to the measure on two grounds. He opposed it on principle, because he believed that a property qualification was an essential ingredient in the constitution of that House; and he opposed it because it was essentially a portion of a Reform Bill, and because he believed it was not fair to the House to call on its Members to deal with any isolated portion of the question of Parliamentary Reform. He would, in the first place, say a few words on the merits of the proposal itself. One argument—and an argument of a very plausible character—put forward in favour of the measure was that a property qualification had not been found necessary in Scotland. He thought he could show that the argument against the present system, drawn from that exception, was not well founded. In discussing that point he would read a passage from the work of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst (Mr. S. Warren) on "Election Law," for the purpose of showing what was the origin of the difference between the law of this country and the law of Scotland upon that subject. That passage was as follows:—

"This Act, it is to be noted, does not apply to Scotland, where no property qualification was ever necessary. It was contended at the time of the Union, when the matter was discussed, that estates in that country were so small that it would not be easy to find members duly qualified."

He wished it to be understood that in reading that quotation he did not mean to question the wealth of hon. Members for Scotland; he used it merely to show how the distinction, as regarded a property qualification, between that country and England had first arisen. He could quote another high authority upon the same subject. He found that on the 2nd of March, 1855, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General for Ireland, said that he "could not concur in the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that because the non-qualification principle worked well in Scotland, therefore it ought to be adopted in England and Ireland." That was the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the year 1855, and he (Mr. Bentinck) hoped that it would be repeated by him before the present debate was brought to a conclusion. In the second volume of the work of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Warren), the learned author quoted from Hallam the remark, that the law was notoriously evaded. No doubt that was a strong and clear opinion, but it did not affect the principle of the measure. If the law was so defective that it did not carry out a good principle, that was a reason for amending the statute, and not for repealing it. The same writer (Mr. Warren) referred to the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and other hon. Members, who wished to place the Members for England and Ireland on the same footing as the Scotch Members, on the ground that the object of the Act had not been attained; but, on the other side, it was urged that such a proceeding would open the door to bankrupts, spendthrifts, and paupers. These reasons were considered sufficient for maintaining the law of property qualification, and he had heard nothing to invalidate those arguments. He would ask, was the House prepared to sanction the principle that a large number of Members might be admitted whose property was of such a reduced character that it was impossible for them to devote the whole of their time to the business of the country without ruin to themselves, and whether it was fair to place them in such a position as to render them liable to temptations, which few men were able to resist? It was clear that if men of such limited means were to be admitted, it would be impossible to maintain the principle of freedom from arrest. The object of that immunity was not, as some appeared to suppose, to enable hon. Members to escape just detention for debt, but to prevent the perpetration of tricks which might be played under certain circumstances to prevent an hon. Member from giving his vote on a great question when parties in the House were nicely balanced. If the House were to admit an unlimited number of men who did not possess an independent means of living, such an immunity must be abolished, otherwise the House would become neither more nor less than a refuge for bankrupt and disreputable characters. He admitted that a man might become a bankrupt from misfortune, and without any blame attaching to his character; but it was well known that many cases of bankruptcy were attended with gross fraud; and he would ask, was it right to make the House a refuge for men of that description? Burke, speaking upon this question, said that the road to eminence and power ought not to be made a thing too much of course, that merit ought to pass through some sort of probation; that the Temple of Honour—which of course meant the House of Commons—ought to be set upon an eminence, and that access thereto should be obtainable only by virtue and merit severely tried. He would refer the House to opinions of a more modern date. He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) was not in the House, and thought it somewhat remarkable that when questions of this kind now came under discussion he was almost invariably absent, whereas he generally took care to be present when he sat on the Ministerial bench. It looked like one of those accidents which were purposely committed. When the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) brought forward this measure on the 12th of May, 1857, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton told him that he had not shown sufficient ground for the proposed change. The hon. Member now urged the same arguments as on the 12th of May, 1857; but the noble Lord was not present to oppose the Bill as he did when in office. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) on the 10th of June, 1857, advised the hon. Member to postpone his Bill, and said that if he did not do so he (Sir G. Grey) would move an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months; and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton approved the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. He, therefore, claimed the support of the noble Lord and of the right hon. Baronet against the Bill; and he was also entitled to claim the support of several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now sitting upon the Treasury bench against the Bill, on account of the opposition which they offered to it while sitting on the other side of the House. The President of the Board of Trade said, on the 2nd of March, 1855, that this measure being a part of the large question of Reform, ought to be deferred until they had the whole subject before them. The same argument had now at least thrice the force it had then, because when his right hon. Friend uttered those words there was very little expectation that the promise of hon. Gentlemen opposite to produce their Bill would be fulfilled. Now, every one was anxious to see a comprehensive measure of Reform brought forward. At least he (Mr. Bentinck) was anxious for such a measure, because he considered that the Act of 1832 was a complete anomaly and full of injustice, which he wished to see remedied. He could not but express the regret he found at witnessing the singular want of similarity between the opinions formerly expressed on the Treasury bench and on the bench opposite; but he contended that he had a right to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to support the Amendment.

said, that it would be reasonable for him, as a Conservative, to listen to the appeal of his hon. Friend, even if he had not had practical knowledge of the evils which the Bill was intended to cure. He would ask whether anybody could pretend to say that the Scotch Members, who were not compelled to show any property qualification, were not fully equal in respectability, in ability, and even in property, to the Members either of England or Ireland? It might be true that no property qualification was imposed in Scotland, because formerly estates in Scotland were very small; but that was not the case now. Did his hon. Friend propose, as he ought to do, to be consistent, that the qualification should be extended to Scotland? He (Mr. Ker Seymer) had had a great deal of experience upon Election Committees. When a question had been raised as to the sufficiency of the qualification of the hon. Member, whose election was disputed, and it was his opinion that the property qualification was a complete snare. So far from keeping out persons not possessed of a certain amount of property it was entirely nugatory. No person could have any difficulty in procuring a fictitious property qualification for a seat in that House, while many gentlemen who were substantially well qualified by property to sit in the House, had been turned out on account of some nice legal point affecting their qualification. A gentleman relied upon a particular estate to give him a title; but if the ingenuity of the lawyers could make out that there was a charge upon it, then, although they could not prove either bribery or corruption, or undue influence, or treating, against the Member, he might be unseated. Take the case of Harwich. An hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of Indian matters would have been of great importance in recent debates, was objected to in this way. Her (Mr. Ker Seymer) thought that he was qualified, and so did the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins); but the other three Members of the Committee were of a different opinion, and so the House and the country had been deprived of the valuable services of this gentleman. In another case a most unhandsome and ungenerous use was attempted to be made of an hon. Gentleman's connection with the British Bank, but that had happily failed. It was, however, time to put an end to this state of things, and he (Mr. Ker Seymer) should be extremely sorry to think that another general election was likely to take place under the present law.

said, he still sat in the same part of the House as formerly, and that, he supposed, was the reason he was still of the same opinion. He wanted to know what was the object to be gained by this measure? Suppose they had no qualification—suppose they were even all paupers, what would they get by that? If they divorced property from political power it would be impossible to preserve the framework of society. They had heard some little hints as to what those gentlemen who really desired reform meant to do when they got it. It was to throw the whole burden of taxation upon that Utopian society called "the rich," and then they would soon have the happiness of being reduced to an uniform level of pauperism. The hon. Gentleman talked of Scotland. That argument was worth nothing. Scotland was a most aristocratic country. All the voters were tenants in capite of the Crown, and they never presumed to think it possible that one not of that class could be a Member of Parliament. The case was just the same as it was with Jews. There was no law for keeping Jews out of Parliament, because no one in his senses would ever have dreamt of a Jew getting in. The measure now before the House ought not to stop where it did. If they were really going to amend the Legislature no measure would be complete which did not deal with the House of Lords. There were two points with regard to which it was necessary to meddle with that House. In the first, they ought to follow the advice of Sir Wm. Temple, and suffer no pauper Peers; they ought to suffer no one who was not possessed of considerable property to sit in the Upper House. In the next place they must insist on doing away with voting by proxy. He (Mr. Drummond) considered that the people of this country had been ill-used with regard to the question of reform. They were told that it depended on which benches hon. Gentlemen sat whether they were or were not its advocates. The only persons who were really in favour of reform were the Socialists. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to be very much amused at that; but he did not think they were any more informed as to what was going on than were the upper classes of France before the Revolution. Depend upon it there was an under-current of Radicalism and Socialism in society which hon. Gentlemen little dreamt of. The question was only brought forward by them in order that they might create out of it a little political capital. But the present was a grave matter. It was the first time they had begun to separate political power from wealth; and he could not conceive anything more calculated to lead to a general disruption of the social fabric.

said, he took a diametrically opposite view of the question to that which had just been expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He did not believe that the property qualification afforded any safeguard for the social, intellectual, or educational standing of those who were elected Members of that House. The real safeguard lay in the choice of the electors, and in the after incidents of an election. The Bill would only make a technical change in the law, but it would remove from hon. Members those pitfalls and snares which had been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ker Seymer).

said, he was not prepared to reverse the votes which he had given in favour of the maintenance of a property qualification as requisite for admission to seats in the House. He knew not what reason might actuate Her Majesty's Government in the course which they seemed inclined to take, but he was sure of this, that the Members of this House, who have for years voted in support of a property qualification, and who suddenly, and for no assigned reason, reversed their votes, would have an awkward explanation demanded of them by their constituents. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire has argued, that because the Scotch Members are not required to have a property qualification, therefore none ought to be required of the Members for England and Ireland, and he has alluded to the Scotch one pound notes as a peculiarity of that country, which currency Reformers think should be extended to England. He (Mr. Newdegate) was not about to argue whether we ought or ought not to have one pound notes in England, but he begged his hon. Friend to consider why the Scotch have one pound notes when the English have none. It was plain that the Scotch have retained their one pound notes, because they have shown that, owing to their manner of transacting business, and owing to the system of banking which is peculiar to that country, they know how to use these one pound notes safely, and that the retention of them is essential to their material interests; this is a privilege adapted to the peculiarities of Scotland, and he held that it was most unwise to neglect these national peculiarities, or to attempt to enforce an arbitrary uniformity in measures applicable to the three countries. It would be to ignore peculiarities and difficulties which you can not annul. He therefore answered his hon. Friend's argument by his own instance. "The Scotch have one pound notes while we have them not in England." But his principal objection to this measure was, that it ought not to be an isolated measure, but to form part of a general scheme for the reform of the representation of the people. He thought that a Reform Bill ought to be introduced—a comprehensive scheme of reform such as would enable the people to weigh one provision of the measure against another, and thus to form an intelligent and sound opinion of the general effect of the measure upon the representative system of this country. He condemned this piecemeal system of reform, because it virtually proposes to effect great changes without the knowledge and consent of the people of this country, for men engaged in business and daily avocation cannot keep their attention fixed upon the constant current of measures passing through this House. Piecemeal reform, therefore, is reform carried on behind the backs of the people of this coun- try, if he might be allowed so to express himself. He objected to this measure on these grounds, but still more strongly because he considered that these isolated measures formed parts of a system of agitation; that they are intended to collect a certain amount of spurious popularity for the movers and supporters of them, and to entail odium upon the House of Lords on account of their rejection. He stated this last night, and he adhered to the same opinion to-day. In conclusion, he repeated that he refused to reverse the votes which he had given against this measure where no new ground for his doing so was shown.

said, he should support the Bill; but if the property qualification was wrong in 1858 it could not have been right in 1857; and he would remind the House that there was a gentleman at the present moment suffering from the consequences of the law they now condemned.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) in deprecating the divorce of political power from property. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was prepared to give way on this, which formed one point of the people's charter, he should like to know how he could resist another point which was nearly allied to it—namely, universal suffrage. There was obviously a close connection in principle between the qualification of the voter and of the candidate; and accordingly, as no property qualification was demanded from representatives of the Universities, none was required of their constituents. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) referred to the case of Scotland. He (Mr. Knightley) admitted that the position of Scotland in this respect was rather anomalous; but the law in many other respects was also different in Scotland to what it was in England. It should be recollected that the spirit, the tastes, and the manners of the two countries were of a very opposite character; for example, their sense of decorum would no doubt be greatly shocked at seeing the hon. Member for Surrey, or any hon. Gentleman from Scotland, walking up to that House with nothing but his shirt on, and such conduct would hardly be excused, because in some parts of Scotland trousers were unknown. Reference had been made to the cases of Mr. Carter and Mr. Glover; but, he must say, that in exchanging those gentlemen for Mr. Robert Phillimore and the present hon. Member for Beverley, neither the voters, nor the House, nor yet the country, had had any cause to complain. He (Mr. Knightley) certainly thought that a large professional income was a sufficient qualification; but the fact that it might be desirable to amend a law was no reason why the law should be altogether repealed. The object of insisting on a property qualification was to secure, as far as might be, the independence and the incorruptibility of Members of Parliament, which, important as it was in the discharge of their general duties, was still more important in connection with the delicate functions they had to perform upstairs. An attack had recently been made on an hon. Gentleman in connection with the manner in which he had performed those functions, and they had seen how completely the charges had fallen to the ground. But would that have been the case if the hon. Gentleman had been some unknown, hungry, penniless adventurer? Far be it from him to say that a poor man might not be as honest as a rich one; but if a man was in debt, or in embarrassed circumstances, or wanting possibly bread for his family, the temptations which the position of a Member of Parliament would throw in his way would be too great for human nature. Depend upon it, if they allowed doubts to rest upon their individual honesty, they would soon destroy, never to be restored again, the authority of the House itself as a branch of the Legislature.

said, he was opposed to proceeding further with the present measure, on the ground that they had been promised a Reform Bill by the Government next year; and he thought it better that the whole subject should be taken into consideration at one time, than that they should attempt to legislate in this piecemeal manner.

Sir, my bon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bentinck) has done me the honour to rake up some opinions which I submitted to the House upon this subject a couple of years ago. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that as the same grounds exist at present as induced me to make the observations on the occasion referred to, I hold precisely the same opinions as I before expressed upon this subject, and I am prepared to support those opinions by my vote. I will not now consider the principle of the particular measure before us, whether it is one of a good or evil character, viewing it as but a portion of a very large and important question, but shall wait until the general measure is before us for our consideration. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) promised us a Reform Bill some two years ago, but, unfortunately, we have never been blessed with the sight of it. I still, therefore, take the same view of the present Bill as I did in 1856.

said, Sir, there is one subject I wish to call the attention of the Committee to before we proceed further with this Bill. That subject, I think, is one of a very remarkable character, and one which appears to me to affect generally the character and independence of this House. I allude to the somewhat extraordinary position in which we stand in reference to this measure. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) has for several years past brought this measure under the consideration of the House. His conduct in relation to it has been ever, I admit, fair and consistent. But I need not remind the House that, up to the present Session, that hon. Gentleman has failed to secure a second reading to his Bill, so decided has been the opposition hitherto offered to its principles by both sides of the House.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. My measure last year was read a second time.

I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman, but that does not affect my argument. So decided has been the opposition to the Bill on both sides of the House for years past, that it has never until now reached that stage of Committee in which we now find ourselves. I feel, therefore, Sir, warranted in saying, that the whole character and conduct of the House in respect to this Bill has been entirely changed. I hope, then, we shall have, before this subject is disposed of, a distinct explanation from the Treasury bench, as well as from the front opposition bench, as to the grounds upon which a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen occupying seats on both benches have thought proper to take the democratical course in respect to this measure, from which they have heretofore avowedly shrunk. Sir, I think that these explanations are due to the character and the independence of this House. I want to know whether such measures are to be dealt with henceforward upon the grounds of principle or of expediency. If they are to be treated as questions of principle, I want to know what are the particular grounds upon which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial as well as on the Opposition bench have come to a directly opposite conclusion on this subject to that which they arrived at on former occasions. In my judgment, Sir, these changes of opinion affect considerably the character and reputation of this House; and, therefore, I think we are entitled to have a distinct explanation of the grounds upon which they have thought proper to vote so directly contrary to the way they have voted on former occasions.

Sir, after the emphatic challenge which my hon. Friend has thrown out, especially to the occupants of the Treasury bench, it would ill become me to decline making some statement in reference, at all events, to my view of this question; although I must say I should have thought the statement I had made the other night in connection with this Bill might have been considered as sufficient. Now, let me recal the attention of the House to the course I have taken in relation to this matter, and in doing so I will appeal to the recollection of the House, and if that be insufficient I will appeal to authentic documents, to which any one can refer, whether there has or has not been on my part, that change of principle of which my hon. Friend has complained. When the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) was at the head of the Government he proposed to introduce a Reform Bill. Soon afterwards that noble Lord went out of office. In the Reform Bill which the noble Lord had, however, introduced, this measure for the abolition of the property qualification formed part, though but a small part. The Earl of Derby succeeded the noble Lord in office in the year 1852. Mr. Tufnell, who was then a Member of the House, proposed the introduction of a Bill identically the same in substance as that of the hon. Member for East Surrey. That Gentleman asked the Government of the Earl of Derby what they intended to do in relation to the subject? I said a few words on the occasion, to the effect that, inasmuch as we had not opposed the consideration of the greater and the general question of Reform by the House when the noble Lord the Member for London proposed to introduce his measure, I thought it would ill become the Government to refuse their assent to the introduction of a small branch of that question, in order that it might be fully considered by the House and the country. The House assented to the introduction of the measure, which, however, was not proceeded with much further. The House, at all events, pronounced no opinion upon the principle of the Bill. When has the question been since brought before us? Never, I believe, except by the hon. Member for East Surrey has the question since been opened. I have read the debate that took place upon the question last year. I certainly then voted against the second reading of the hon. Member's Bill, but I will ask hon. Gentlemen if they have not the facts in connection with the discussion of that Session vividly before their minds? To refer to the authentic records of the time for precise information on the matter, I will ask the House whether the debate that took place last year on the subject did not altogether turn upon the principles just referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire—namely, that inasmuch as the whole question of Reform was to be proposed in another year, it was thought much better to postpone the consideration of this small portion of the general subject. That, Sir, was the ground upon which I voted against the hon. Member's Bill; but I deny that I ever expressed any opinion upon its principle. I challenge my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Gentleman, to show that I have ever, at that or any other time previously expressed any opinion upon the principle of the measure; therefore, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, I do not think that I have left myself open to the charge of my hon. Friend. But he says that this is either a question of principle or expediency with us, and that he thinks it is essential to the independence of hon. Members to maintain their property qualification. Essential to the independence of hon. Members! Now my hon. Friend knows that Members for the Universities do not require the possession of this qualification. And what is more, the hon. Gentleman's own son, if returned to this House, need not declare that he possessed any property, the sons of county Members being exempted from this law. There is, too, one out of the three parts of the United Kingdom—Scotland—the Members of which are not required to show any property qualification; and I think that if there is any one class of Members in this House especially remarkable for their exercise of an independent judgment on all occasions, the Gentlemen who are returned from Scotland belong to that class. Sir, I have never seen anything in the Parliamentary conduct of Scotch Members that could make us believe this property qualification was at all essential to secure an independence of character. The hon. Gentleman referred us to the book of the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst on "Election Law" for the purpose of showing that, in the time of Queen Anne, the Scotch Members were then so poor that it would be difficult to find a man in that part of the kingdom that could produce a property qualification. Well, then, if independence of character in this House is to be tested only by the value of a man's property, how are we to reconcile the facts to which I have referred with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman? If the argument of the hon. Gentleman be worth anything, it would go the length of saying that we have a number of men amongst us, who are more likely to be led away from the proper course by the undue influences which are exercised over them, because the law does not require them to show that they are possessed of any property. But we know that that is not the case, and that that particular class of Members are, at all events, as little obnoxious to any such charge of undue influences as any other representatives in this House, and, therefore, it is a fair inference that no undue influence will be exercised upon other Members because they come to the table to be sworn, not necessarily without the present qualification, but without being obliged to state that they had it. My hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Knightly) has reproached me—good humouredly, no doubt—with being on this occasion a supporter of what he calls the People's Charter. Now I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this respect, that representation ought to rest upon the basis of property, as the best to secure independence of action, and I am anxious that that principle should be brought in mind by the framers of any Reform Bill to be submitted to this House. But I do not think that that exactly applies to the present question. I think, Sir, that in abolishing this property qualification for Members to sit in this House, we shall be abolishing that which is in a great many cases nothing more than a mere sham. I believe, too, that if that qualification be done away with we shall see as many men of property and independence sent into this House as at present occupy its benches. The practical inconvenience of the present law is this; many persons possessed of knowledge, experience and ability, who enjoy only professional incomes, are prevented entering this House, unless they are willing to submit to this fiction and sham in order to secure their seats. That is an inconvenience which we shall get rid of, if we abolish this property qualification. Now, Sir, I should not have troubled the Committee at this length but for the challenge thrown out by my hon. Friend. The more I think of this question the less value am I disposed to place upon the maintenance of this property qualification. And when I recollect, Sir, that about thirty years ago a certain gentleman was returned as a Member of this House in his absence, by the free and independent choice of a constituency, who incurred the whole expense necessary to such a proceeding—that that person so returned was unable to take his seat here because he could not produce the nominal property qualification required—that that gentleman was neither a pauper nor a bankrupt nor an insolvent, but was one of the ablest literary characters and politicians that ever lived—I mean Southey—when I recollect this fact, and that there are many hon. and independent minded men whom your law prevents entering this House. I say, Sir, that I cannot see any objection to abolishing a useless and even mischievous sham, when at the same time without that sham existing, a property qualification would, in point of fact, be the basis of our representation. For these reasons I am as strongly convinced as I was when I addressed the House upon the second reading of this Bill that in point of reason, in point of principle, and, give me leave to add, in point of expediency, it is desirable to get rid of this sham.

said, his right hon. Friend had stated that the reason why he opposed the second reading of this Bill last year was, that there was a Reform Bill then looming in the distance. He should like to know whether that was not the state of things at present—whether the present Government had not promised a Reform Bill? [Mr. WALPOLE: No; the consideration of a Reform Bill.] He had always voted against this Bill, and should continue to do so, viewing it, as he did, as an encroachment on the institutions of the country; and he was sorry that so many members of the Government with whom he had long had the honour of acting had changed their opinions with their seats. There could be no greater peril to the country than the having in Parliament a body of men who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by a scramble. A short time ago a Member of that House declared in a police court that he did not know where on earth to turn for £40. He would ask, whether a person of that description was fit to represent any county or borough in this kingdom? The privilege from arrest was dishonouring to any body of gentlemen, but more especially dishonouring to those to whom were intrusted the honour and dignity of the country, and therefore he should support the proposition of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Hunt) for its abolition.

It is not my intention to enter into the dispute which has arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and those who sit beside him. All I can say is, that I think the right hon. Gentleman gave an excellent reason for the course which he has taken, and that until better reasons are given against it, he has a right to adhere to it. What I have risen to say, and what I should have said before had not the House been anxious to divide, is, that there is no foundation for the assumption of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) and others, that the property qualification is essential to the constitution of this House. On the contrary, I have always considered that that qualification, introduced by the 9th of Queen Anne, was an invasion, an usurpation, and, in fact, a contradiction of the ancient constitution of this House. According to that constitution, the Members for the boroughs were called burgesses, and were many of them actually burgesses of the places which they represented, and, therefore, they could very seldom have had landed property to the amount of £300. a year. Take some of the most eminent Members of this House—take Mr. Selden, one of the most learned and able men who ever sat here; he was the son of a yeoman. Mr. Somers, afterwards Lord Somers, one of the greatest ornaments of the House, was the son of an attorney; and although I believe his father had £300 a year in land, he himself had not that qualification. Therefore, according to the ancient consti- tution of this House, these eminent men, qualified by their ability, sat in this House without any obstacle or impediment. You sought by the Act of Anne to shut out men of abilities who had not property, but have you succeeded? It would have been a great misfortune if you had, but you have not, because your law, like those of prohibitory duties, has been evaded. Men of abilities have come in here, and have been obliged to resort to an evasion of that law which you attempt to hold up as essential to the constitution of this House. I think the sooner we get rid of such a law the better. I attempted to get rid of it in 1852; and, as I have since said, I have seen reason to think that it is far better that we should go on with one good measure after another, with a view to improve the constitution of this House. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has discussed this question upon its merits, without reference to that great Reform Bill which the Government are to consider during the autumn. I hope he will take the same course with regard to another Bill of my hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) which is to come on next week—that he will discuss that measure upon its merits, and will make as successful a speech in its favour as he has made upon this subject.

said, but for the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) he should have been contented with the defence of the Government made by the Home Secretary. His hon. and gallant Friend had charged the Government with having changed their opinions. He begged to assure him that he had not changed his opinions, and that his vote in favour of this Bill was one of the most Tory votes that he ever gave in the House of Commons. He firmly believed that the passing of this Bill would rather tend to strengthen than to weaken the landed and Conservative interests of the country.

said, that in giving a vote opposed to that of his noble Friend, he had certainly supposed that he was giving a Tory vote. He rose, however, to state that, as he had been informed that he could not regularly move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice (to abolish the privilege front arrest), he therefore should not press it.

said, he must still beg to refer to the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department against this Bill in 1857 as a proof that he had at different times voted black and white upon the same question.