said, there was a conflict of opinion in Dublin on this. The corporation had voted in favour of it, and he had received a petition from a number of most respectable firms requesting its postponement. Under these circumstances, he and his colleagues were ready to leave the matter to the decision of the House.

said, the Bill was a gross job, to which the University of Dublin and many of the most respectable inhabitants were opposed. The Bill proposed to take the water supply from the river Liffey, but the inhabitants of Dublin did not wish to be poisoned. He now understood that the promoters gave up that scheme, and intended to enter into a contract with the canal companies for the supply of water. As the Bill had been framed with the view of taking the supply from the former source, he wished to know from the Chairman of Committees whether it was competent for the promoters to make so essential a change in the Bill. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed till the next Session.

said, if the fact was as stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it was so substantial a departure from the provisions that the Bill could not be allowed to proceed further. But as the Bill was one of great public importance, and deeply interesting to the people of Dublin, it would be a hard measure to postpone the scheme till next Session. He ventured, therefore, to suggest that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) should ask leave to withdraw the Bill, and then ask leave to introduce another in which the intention of the promoters would be clearly expressed.

, as a rate-payer of Dublin, supported the Bill, the great object of which was to provide for the poor of that city an abundant supply of good water.

urged the withdrawal of the Bill, on the ground of informality.

said, he did not think the House should reject a measure of such importance on the ground stated. Moreover, he perceived that the Bill gave alternative power to take water either from the Liffey or from the Canal Company. It would be unfair to the Corporation of Dublin to reject their Bill so summarily, and he would therefore suggest that it should be postponed for a week, with a view to its amendment.

protested against the hon. Chairman of Committees being called on to express an opinion upon such a subject, a course which looked somewhat like dictatation to the House.

said, he would withdraw his Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill until that day week.

would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether (the comparatively moderate rates of Import Duty charged by Belgium, Russia, and Prussia on British Herrings being respectively 1s. 6d., 2s.10d., and 3s. per Barrel, worth about 25s., encourage a large trade in that article to the Countries chiefly from the Scotch Fishing Stations, but the French Import Duty being 52s. 6d. per barrel, or prohibitory) any negotiation has taken place, with the view of obtaining a remission or reduction of such Duty on the part of the French Government; and, if so, whether the Correspondence relating thereto may be ordered to be printed?

said, no correspondence on the subject had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government.

said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in consequence of a paragraph he had seen that morning in a late edition of a leading journal. He wished to know, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information of the existence of an Austro-Russian Treaty?

Sir, I have to state that Count Rechberg, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Vienna, has positively denied the existence of any such document.

I rise, Sir, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to ask leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the laws relating to the representation of the people in England and Wales. But before I enter into the subject it is necessary for me to make a few remarks. I wish to disclaim entirely any intention, by the measure I ask leave to introduce, to frame a new Constitution. I disclaim such a project for two reasons. One reason is that I have no wish to alter the Constitution of this House; the other is that, if any such alteration were sought, I should feel totally unable to propose anything that would stand in the place of the ancient and glorious Constitution of this country. And I have this further to say, that if I propose a Bill to amend the representation of the people, it is not as a confession that the Reform Act of 1832 has failed; it is rather because that Act has succeeded. I do not think that any Act was ever passed by this House that has had more complete success, or with which so few faults have been found as the measure of 1832. And when I compare the present state of this country with what was its state some years before the Reform Act, I cannot but congratulate this House that by that measure so much discontent has been allayed and so much satisfaction been given. I do not allude to our material wealth, or the great increase that has taken place in our prosperity, because that progress may be attributed to other causes. But it is that the people since 1832 have been more generally satisfied with the institutions under which they live. If I compare the year 1820 with the year 1860 I remember that in the former year Lord Castlereagh had introduced measures which he himself designated as measures of severe repression; they were measures intended to restrain the press, to prevent public meetings in the open air, with other restrictions upon the liberty of the people of the same kind. These restrictions were thought necessary by the Government of that day; and I think that, according to the system of Government then pursued, such measures may be considered necessary. But looking at the state of the country in 1860 I find a generally prevailing spirit of loyalty to our institutions—a spirit that wishes to preserve and extend, not to destroy them. Sir, with this preface I proceed to say what we propose to do, in some degree at least, to supply the omissions and remedy the defects of the Reform Act. In doing so, I shall pass on at once to the questions on which I mean to ask the opinion of the House. Sir, there is one point that has more than once attracted the attention of the House, and on which it has clearly pronounced its decision. It is the franchise in counties. During the progress of the Reform Act through this House it was decided that freehold and leasehold tenures should no longer give the sole title to a county vote; but that an occupation, merely, of the annual value of £50 should also confer on the occupier the right of voting. That was an obvious change in the nature of a county franchise. That claim having been sanctioned by Parliament, those who since that time have looked into the subject, with the view of amending the law, have very naturally said, "If an occupation merely is to give a title to a vote, it should no longer be restricted to a £50 holding; the occupier of a £20 or £10 holding is as fully entitled to a vote, and would form as good a class of electors as the occupier of a value of £50." That view of the question has been more than once adopted; in principle it was adopted by the late Government. Therefore, in the Bill I now introduce we propose to add to the county franchise an occupation franchise of £10 a year. But we propose also to take further securities than were taken in the Bill of last year, that this shall be a bonâ fide franchise. It is obvious that under the plan of a £10 holding the land might be covered with small occupations that could not be properly called beneficial holdings. We propose that where land is attached to a dwelling-house no sum shall be required as value in respect of the dwelling-house, but where there shall be on the land any building other than a dwelling-house a sum not less than £5 shall be required as the value on such building. We propose, therefore, that the building not being a dwelling-house should be assessed at the value of not less than £5 per annum We expect, however, that in the case of a dwelling-house the annual value shall be not less than £10. I now proceed, Sir, to the consideration of a question which has occasioned far more disputes, which gave rise last year to warm debate in this House, and with respect to which various opinions were expressed—I mean the question of lowering the borough franchise. It appeared to me, I must confess, that the late Mr. Hume had good reason to complain, some time after the Reform Bill of 1832 had come into operation, that a £10 franchise in boroughs drew too arbitrary a line; that a number of persons were in consequence of the line being so drawn deprived of the light of voting who might fairly enjoy the privilege, and that in that respect an injury was done to our system of Parliamentary representation. The longer the time that has elapsed the more distinctly have I perceived that that complaint was founded in justice. It has been said that the franchise in boroughs was in 1832 purposely framed to exclude the working classes from the right of voting; but to that statement I cannot subscribe, although I am ready to admit that it was framed with the view generally of giving weight to the middle classes in this country, whose information and character appeared to us at that time to be such as to entitle them to obtain that vast accession of power which they then received. I own, however, that I think it would be a great evil if we were to continue much longer to exclude from our representative system that large number of the working classes who, by their knowledge, their character, and their other qualifications, are fitted to exercise the franchise freely and independently. It appears to us, then, that the constitution would derive additional strength from the fact that a certain number of those working men best qualified for the privilege were admitted to the franchise, and that they would thereby be induced to set a greater value on the benefits which the constitution confers. I am aware that it is said there has been no agitation on this subject; that we have seen manifested with respect to it nothing of that eagerness which took possession of all classes of men at the period of the Reform Act, and that we ought not, therefore, until something like a successful agitation is set on foot to proceed to extend the franchise. That, Sir, however, is not the sort of political doctrine which I have been taught. I have, on the contrary, been accustomed to regard the well-known maxim of Mr. Burke with respect to early re- formation as being both deep and wise. I have not failed to perceive that in those instances in which agitation has been carried to a great length, and in which just demands have been refused—as in the case of the Catholic question—the country has been on the eve of having its peace disturbed and brought almost to the brink of insurrection, because Parliament had obstinately refused the concessions that have been asked. The consequence has been that, when those concessions have at length been made, although they were wise and founded on just principles, yet that, coming somewhat too late, and being as it were watered by delay, we have witnessed the land vexed and troubled by agitation arising out of those very measures the object of which was to pacify. I, for one, am, therefore, of opinion that we ought not to wait in the present instance until agitation arises, and those classes which are excluded from the enjoyment of the franchise combine together to enforce their demands upon the consideration of Parliament. On the contrary, I maintain that, if their petition be just, if their claims be founded on a fair appreciation of their own qualifications, and that it would be likely to contribute to the strength and durability of the constitution to accede to their request, we ought not to hesitate to comply because no agitation of the question prevails. I have no wish to see again the flames of Nottingham and of Bristol blaze forth to warn the House of Commons that it must delay no longer to pass a further measure of Parliamentary reform. I much prefer taking advantage of these quiet and tranquil times, when any proposition on the subject can be fairly and calmly discussed, to submit such a measure to Parliament, to deferring its introduction to a moment of greater excitement, when it might be out of our power to fix, as we might deem expedient, the exact limits by which our proposal ought to be defined, and the exact concessions which ought to be made. In dealing with this great question, then, Sir, we have deemed it better, upon the whole, in order to make our measure as simple as possible, to avoid those proposals which we ourselves made in former years, and which were likewise made last year by our predecessors in office—I allude to the introduction into our representative system of franchises hitherto unknown to the constitution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham calls "fancy franchises," and which, although many of them might confer the right of voting on persons well qualified to exercise it, yet are almost every one of them liable to abuse and to result in the creation of fictitious votes. The principle on which we propose to proceed, therefore, is to extend still further the £10 franchise which is now enjoyed; to take that franchise generally with its present conditions; to require the payment of rates, as is now the case; but, at the same time, to extend it to a lower degree than that at which it stands. With that view we have made many inquiries, and carefully considered their results. There is, I may here observe, one question which has been frequently discussed, and which formed the foundation of the provisions of the Bills introduced 1852 and 1854,—I allude to the question whether this should be a rating franchise. In examining that subject we found that great variety in the proportions of the rating franchise to the true value of houses existed. We discovered that there were some instances in which there was a difference of 9 per cent between the gross rental and the rated value of a house, while in many instances there was a difference of 28, and in others of 30 per cent. Now it is obvious that it would not be possible in a Reform Bill to make a change based on that mode of valuation; that, in so doing, you would be subject to the discretion of local authorities, and, as a consequence, either through ignorance, custom, or prejudice, in some boroughs many persons would lose their votes, while in others persons possessing the same amount of property would enjoy the franchise. I have stated the practical difficulty which would be involved in making the change; but, there is another objection to its introduction. In striking the poor law rate the rental of a house is calculated according to its true value, subtracting from it, however, not only the rate charged in point of fact, but also the sum necessary for repairs. Now, in taxing property it is quite right to subtract that sum; for, if a house be valued at £10, and £2 are each year laid out for the purposes of repair, it is obvious that the property is not in reality worth more than £8 per annum to the occupier. The question, however, with respect to the meaning of a £10 "clear yearly value"—the phrase used in the Reform Bill of 1832—came before the Court of Common Pleas, and it was then contended that the "clear yearly value" intended by Parliament was the same as was signified by the "net annual value" under the Poor Law Act, and that the Reform Act should, therefore, be construed after that manner. The Court of Common Pleas, however, decided that in the case of the Reform Act the Legislature had proceeded diverso intuitu, and that in that particular case its object was to confer the franchise according to the capacity to pay rent, and not to impose a tax on a man according to the value of his property;—that is to say, that if a man paid £10 a year for his house, it was no matter whether £2 a year were laid out by his landlord for the purposes of repair; that he was the man who paid the £10 a year, and the Legislature declared that the man who paid a rental of £10 a year was entitled to a vote. That being so, we did not think it advisable—indeed, we are of opinion that it would be practically inconvenient, and in point of abstract right unjust, to fix upon a franchise that should be dependent on rating. Then, the question next came as to what would be the franchise taking the gross annual rental, or, as it is expressed in the Reform Bill, the "clear yearly value," of the premises. The returns at first showed a very great addition which almost any reduction in the franchise would make to the number of the electors. For instance, reducing it to £8 seemed to add an almost overwhelming number; but, when the question came to be tested and examined, it was found that a very great number of these persons, though holding houses of the value of £8 a year, yet in consequence of living at a distance, of not having paid their rates, and from various other causes, were disabled from having a vote; and that the deductions on these grounds were so large as to amount to 27½ per cent. Now, Sir, having arrived at that conclusion, the next question was to consider what would be the numbers added generally in the whole boroughs in England and Wales by taking any particular sum. It appeared that the whole number of electors on the register was 440,790 in the cities and boroughs. A very considerable number of these 440,790 were freemen, or persons having an old scot and lot right of voting, or in the enjoyment of old rights which are expiring. A deduction ought to be made for the number of freemen and others to the extent of 30,765; the remainder, therefore, only 410,005, may be said to have the right of voting as electors on the register by virtue of the ordinary right of voting—the possesion of a £10 qualification. Well, in considering what should be done we found that if we took those who occupied at a gross rental of £9 and over we should get 440,717 electors, being only 30,712 additional voters. If we took those at £8 and over, the number of voters would be 476,004, being an additional number of voters of about 66,000—i.e., 65,999. Sir, it appeared to us, although that is apparently a very considerable lowering of the franchise—namely, not to £8 rated rental, which some persons talk of, but an £8 occupation—that disturbing the arrangements of the Reform Act and introducing a measure which might excite great public expectations, and adding no more than 66,000 to the 440,000 electors now on the register for the cities and boroughs of England and Wales, would not be a satisfactory or a wise proposition. It then became worth while to see what would he the effect of placing the franchise at £7. At £7 and over the total number of voters, subtracting always the 27½ per cent, would be 532,817; giving 122,812 additional voters. Well, but we did not stop at that number. We went down to the £6 rental. We considered what effect would be produced by taking the rental at £6 and over, and we found that the total number of voters for all the cities and boroughs of England and Wales, including the metropolis, and such places as Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, at this franchise would be 604,804, making an addition of 194,199 voters; so that if we add the present number of electors—namely, 440,770—we shall have as the total number of voters for the cities and boroughs in England and Wales 634,969. Sir, it appeared to us that in point of number that was no extravagant amount—that when you have already 440,000, including freemen, to add to them somewhere under 200,000, less than 50 per cent of the present number, was no exorbitant addition. With regard, however, to the character of the persons who would be thus admitted, I must say the accounts from different cities and boroughs have been extremely various. In some places the rental is very low; in others it is high; accordingly, in some places therefore the number of electors added to the present number would be very large, in others very small. In the city of London there would be very few indeed. In Plymouth there would be some 200 or 300. In other places—at Liverpool, for instance—there would be a greater number, perhaps 15,000. But then the question is, what is the character of those who would thus be added to the constituency? I remember asking a gentleman now deceased, Mr. Fletcher, who was inspector under the Poor Law Act, to take the trouble of going through the manufacturing districts and inquiring for me what was the general rent the highest-paid of the working classes gave for their houses; and when he came back he said he thought about £7 a year gross rental, or much about the same sum I have mentioned. Now, it is difficult to lay down any rule or fix any particular amount as regards this class; but I think if we add what I have stated to the present number of electors, we should have a great number of the working classes included; and I think it would be a great benefit to our representation and to our constitution to have this class included; and I repeat, I do not think that would be any very extravagant number to add to the whole body of electors. Well, Sir, I come now to another question—a question of a totally different nature, and one on which I think it behoves this House to consider well as to the changes they make now or may hereafter make. When I had the honour, twenty-nine years ago, of introducing a Bill for the Reform of the Representation of the People, the task was so far easy that the general sense of the country condemned places which were mere mounds or ruins, which no persons inhabited, while such places as Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham were allowed no representatives in this House. I remember the last effort I made before the Reform Bill was to endeavour to obtain representatives for these three towns, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham; and one would scarcely believe, unless he looked back to the proceedings of that day, that a very considerable majority of this House decided against the admission of these great towns to the representation. But when the country once took up the question, the absurdity of the state of things to which I have alluded became evident. There were certain places that continued to have representatives without having the least semblance of population; there were others—among them the great towns which are the chief seats of our staple manufactures—in which Parliamentary representation did not exist. But, Sir, the case at the present day, and the case for future consideration, is a very different one; and I wish to call the attention of this House to what, in my view of this case, are circumstances which must, I think, have the greatest weight in any decision as to what is to be done. There was, more than two centuries ago, before the names of Whig and Tory were ever known, a great dispute between two great parties as to the nature of the functions of the House of Commons. The one party declared and maintained that the persons holding the chief weight in this House should likewise be Ministers of the Crown; that they and those who agreed with them should carry on the business of the House in the name of the Crown, and that thus the connection should he maintained between the Crown and the House of Commons. According to the view of these persons, in the time of Charles I., Mr. Pym was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would have been called what is now styled leader of this House, and would have conducted, in the name of the Sovereign, the business of the country. But there was another party that said this ought not to be the function of the House of Commons. The function of the House of Commons was to check and control the Crown; let the Ministers of the Crown he disqualified for sitting in the House of Commons, and let their measures be discussed by a perfectly independent House of Commons. That dispute continued till the reign of Queen Anne, when the former party finally prevailed. The only remains of the theory of their opponents is to be found in that provision by which the Members of this House, on accepting offices under the Crown, vacate their seats, but are eligible for re-election. In fact, one of these doctrines expired with Bolingbroke, the other triumphed with Sir Robert Wal-pole; and from that time it has been necessary that this House should not only represent generally the opinion of the people on propositions emanating from the Crown, but it has been necessary that this House should contain within itself persons capable of conducting the business of the country—capable of conducting, as things at present stand, the affairs of a great empire, whether with regard to our colonial dependencies, the affairs of our Exchequer and the taxes to be imposed, or with regard to foreign affairs, representing the Crown, and at the same time having seats in the House of Commons. Now, I very much doubt whether this can be done if you have a representation consisting either of elec- toral districts or divided solely into counties and great towns. With regard to the counties it is obvious that the greater portion of the country gentlemen who represent them would be unwilling to leave their present occupations in the country or to sacrifice their ease in order to undergo the labours of office and the drudgery which in these times office imposes. With respect, again, to the Members for the great cities and great manufacturing towns, we often find that they are gentlemen who are themselves engaged in business, who can indeed give a certain amount of attention to the business of this House and can be present at all it3 principal debates, but who would never be induced to risk their prospects in life that they might attain the precarious position, for six months or a year, of Ministers of the Crown. I hold, therefore, that it is quite necessary, having regard to the great business of government, that besides the counties and the larger cities and manufacturing towns, you should have smaller places returning Members to this House. There is another reason which makes it essential that there should be something of this kind in our representation, and it is this, that you have from time to time seen men of the greatest ability, and fitted to render the greatest service to the country, but who, representing a great popular body, incur the momentary displeasure of their constituents, and are thereby deprived of their seats in Parliament. That, Sir, was what happened to Mr. Burke, because he contended for the great principles of liberty both here and in Ireland, as well as in America. The same was the case in more recent times with a man who was famous in this House and who has lately departed from among us, but who will live for ever in his immortal writings—I mean the late Lord Macaulay. I say, then, that if, according to the system which has now been established for a century and a half, you are to have the government of this country carried on this House, it is necessary that you should have more than these two classes of representatives—the Members for the counties and those for the great cities and towns. Nor has there been any plan of reform proposed of late years which would do away with that kind of representation. The measure brought forward by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) last year made the least change that any one has proposed in this respect; while, perhaps, the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Birming- ham (Mr. Bright) made the greatest. But it is singular enough that my hon. Friend's proposal left us with between forty and fifty Members for towns having from 8,000 to 15,000 inhabitants, and therefore being towns of a moderate size, such as those to which I have referred. I infer from this, then, that however our plans of reform may differ, all those who have taken part in proposing such plans of late years have been of opinion that there should be a certain number of moderate sized towns which should send Members to Parliament, as well as the other larger constituencies that I have mentioned. Having laid down that, Sir, as a general principle, I am far from intending to discuss whether, as an abstract question, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham would be the best—best I mean as an abstract principle—but I wish to deal with this question as one which concerns us practically. For my own part I should be quite satisfied with the proposal which we made in 1854. That proposal was that about sixty seats, or rather more, should be taken from the smaller boroughs and transferred chiefly to the larger counties and some to the large towns. There is another question with which I do not shrink from dealing. It is a question which concerns the present state of this House. When the Reform Bill of 1832 was introduced there were many of those boroughs which, as I have said, contained only a ruined wall or a green mound, and there was no difficulty, when Parliament was once disposed to touch those boroughs, in abolishing their franchises. I remember one hon. Gentleman who, much to his honour, when it was proposed that the borough of Ludgershall should be placed in schedule A, got up and said, "I am the patron of Ludgershall, I am the elector of Ludgershall, I am the Member for Ludgershall, and in all three capacities I vote for the disfranchisement of Ludgershall." But the case at the present time is very different. You have no men who can dispose in that way—even if they were willing to do it—of these small boroughs. If a town has but 250 or 300 voters, these 250 or 300 voters will feel as keenly as the electors of much larger places. They and their representatives would join with those Gentlemen, whatever their numbers might be, who are the most Conservative party in this House, and I have no doubt they would be able to defeat any such measure as I proposed to introduce in 1854. Therefore, without meaning to go into the question, which does not immediately concern us, as to how many small boroughs there ought to be, and how far the growing wealth and population of the country require their seats to be sooner or later transferred to other places, I may state that our proposal goes only a certain length beyond the proposal made last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman's proposition was, that fifteen boroughs, now returning two Members each, should henceforth return only one. This I think was to be done by fixing on 6,000 as the limit of population, and taking one Member from each of the boroughs whose population was below that limit. Now we propose to go up to the limit of 7,000 inhabitants, and in the same manner to take away one Member from every borough that falls below that point. It appears to me that it would not be desirable to raise the question of total disfranchisement unless we went to something like the length we proposed to go in 1854. The principle of total disfranchisement is one of very grave importance. It ought not to be adopted without some great and palpable public benefit would accrue from it. I cannot think, therefore, that the abolition of some six, seven, or ten boroughs, leaving eight or ten others of a similar character immediately above them in population, would be a wise or expedient measure. It would evidently create great dissatisfaction among those thus disfranchised, and they would certainly be able to show that other boroughs immediately above thorn were of much the same description. It is a much milder proposition to say that at the bottom of the scale there are a certain number of boroughs which may still continue to be represented, but which are now overweighted in the representation, and some of their seats should be given to the more populous towns and larger counties. We, therefore, propose that those boroughs, whose names I will read, shall no longer send two Members to Parliament. They are:—Honiton, Thetford, Totnes, Harwich, Evesham, Wells, Richmond, Marlborough, Leominster, Lymington, Ludlow, Andover, Knaresborough, Tewkesbury, and Maldon. Thus far, I believe, the list agrees with the list contained in the Bill of last year. We go on; however, to Ripon, Cirencester, Huntingdon, Chippenham, Bodmin, Dorchester, Marlow, Devizes, Hertford, and Guildford. That gives us twenty-five seats, on the whole, which would have to be disposed of by Parliament. Now, we propose that the following counties should return additional Members—namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire two additional Members. All the rest, which I will read, are to return one additional Member—namely, the southern division of Lancashire, the northern division of Lancashire, the county of Middlesex, the western division of Kent, the southern division of Devonshire, the southern division of Staffordshire, the north riding of Yorkshire, the parts of Lindsey (Lincolnshire), the southern division of Essex, the eastern division of Somerset, the western division of Norfolk, the western division of Cornwall, and the northern division of Essex. It will be seen that we do not propose to divide the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the reason is that there is a great repugnance in that vast riding to have its magnificence at all diminished by a partition. There will thus be fifteen seats given to counties, of which, though some are manufacturing, others are essentially agricultural in their character. Coming to boroughs, we propose that Kensington and Chelsea combined shall form one borough to return two Members to Parliament; that Birkenhead, Staleybridge, and Burnley should in future return one Member each; and that Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds should henceforth return three Members each instead of two. The House may remember that upon a former occasion I made a proposition which was not very palatable to the House, and which was certainly not popular in the country—namely, that there should be a division of votes; in other words, that where there were three Members each elector should have only two votes. As that proposition was not very popular, although I think it was a fair and just one, I shall not attempt to renew it upon the present occasion, I have observed that where there are three Members and there is a division of parties, one being the majority but the other comprising a very large number of electors, there is a growing tendency, arising from a sense of fairness and justice, that the minority, though it be the weaker party, shall not be altogether excluded from the representation, but that the third Member shall be given to it. That may not be so in times of great party contests. It did not so occur at the time of the great fight between protection and free trade. For a long time, chiefly because of the questions of protection and free trade in which the agricultural counties felt a deep interest, those counties which now possess three Members generally returned gentlemen all belonging to the same political party—the Conservative; but, on looking at the returns made to the last Parliament, I find that, in five out of the seven counties which enjoy the privilege of electing three Members each, two were of one party and one of the other. I regard it as a great benefit to those counties themselves, as well as to the country at large, that there should exist such a disposition not to exclude altogether a very strong minority, but to allow it to have part of the representation. I know it is said that the vote of the third Member, the representative of a minority, neutralizes the vote of one of the other two. That is not altogether true, because in many instances where the questions at issue are not directly party questions all three Members may, and, we find, often do, vote together, although sitting on different sides of the House. I think, therefore, we shall not do wrong in giving three Members to some of the more populous towns, as we have given three Members to some of the larger counties. Sir, I have stated the distribution of seats which we propose to make with respect to counties and boroughs. But there is another seat at our disposal, and we propose to give it to a learned body which contains within it a sort of representation of those who are excluded from the older Universities—I mean the London University. Sir, I have already said that we wish to make our measure as simple as possible. We do not propose, in substituting £6 for £10, to change any of the conditions of the franchise except one—namely, that which makes it necessary to pay the assessed taxes. It appears to us that it is sufficient if a householder pays his poor rate, and that it would be a needless restriction to render obligatory the payment of the assessed taxes. The House will also observe that all we propose, with the exception of the twenty-five seats I have mentioned, is in the way of enfranchisement, and enfranchisement with as little novelty as possible. Seeing the objections that have been made and the failures that have occurred in former years, we have sought to confine the attention of Parliament to the question of the franchise, and to such changes as seem absolutely to be required by the number of places which demand and deserve representation, rather than to alter other things which, however objectionable they may be considered, do belong to our ancient customs and our long-established forms of representation. I believe in so doing we are taking the safest and the best course. At all events, we shall enable Parliament to decide upon those questions by themselves, without having its mind disturbed or its time consumed by the discussion of refinements and novelties. Although I have not succeeded in carrying two measures of reform which I have had the honour to introduce of late years, I am by no means discouraged by that fact. For ten years I laboured hard to obtain the assent of Parliament to measures of reform before I introduced the Bill of 1831. I laboured in vain, but that did not prevent the success of the Bill of 1832. I feel sure that if hon. Gentlemen will apply their minds to the present measure, if they will look upon it as a measure bringing, at all events, a considerable portion of the working classes within the temple of the constitution, enabling them to exercise privileges of which they are worthy by their character and acquirements, they will agree with me in thinking that the foundations of the Constitution will be strengthened, and that we shall hereafter rejoice at having passed such a Bill. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales.

Will the noble Lord have the goodness to state when he proposes to take the second reading of his Bill?

I am not sure, but certainly not within a fortnight from the present time. I will fix the day tomorrow.

May I ask the noble Lord whether he has included the four seats which have been so long vacant in his scheme?

We hare disposed of all the seats which we propose to take away by the present Bill; and, with respect to the four to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which have been so long vacant as to be freely at the disposal of Parliament, we think it fair to give them to Scotland and Ireland.

said, he had the honour of a scat in that House when the noble Lord introduced the Re- form Bill of 1831. At that time he felt that there existed a great practical necessity for some change in the representation of the people, and he gave his cordial support to that Bill for the enfranchisement of large towns. He thought it utterly impolitic and unsafe that great towns like Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Leeds, should be unrepresented. But on the present occasion the case was very different. He wished to call the attention of the House for a few moments to a very important question of principle—one on which the House would do well to pause. He had failed to learn from the noble Lord the principle upon which he proposed to seize on half of the rights and privileges of twenty-five towns of this kingdom. The noble Lord had failed to lay down any intelligible principle whatever for this proceeding. It was clear that he might have seized 100 seats as easily as twenty-five. But was it right that the privileges of every town in the kingdom should be placed at the arbitrary will and mercy of the majority of the House of Commons? While a great number of cases in which large places had abused their privileges and which had been brought under the notice of the House and were allowed to pass unpunished, it was now proposed to forfeit one-half the privileges of twenty-five of the smaller towns of England against which no offence had been alleged. The progress of the discussion would show that the noble Lord was creating more anomalies than he was destroying.

inquired whether the returns on which the noble Lord had founded his statement with respect to borough voters would be laid on the table, and expressed a hope that plenty of time would be allowed hon. Members for the consideration of the subject.

said, some were already on the table, and the others would be laid on the table in a day or two.

said, as one of the present representatives of the districts which the noble Lord proposed to create into a borough—he meant the districts of Chelsea and Kensington—he could not refrain from thanking the Government for this measure. He wished, however, to ask the Government whether it was intended to continue the county franchise to those who possessed property within boroughs according to the present system; or whether they had adopted the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which took away all county votes for property situate within electoral boroughs.

wished to know, whether the noble Lord had it in contemplation to make any alteration in the boundary limits of the present boroughs.

said, that the Government did not propose to take the county franchise from the voters referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The question put with respect to the boundaries of boroughs involved an important subject, and raised the ulterior question whether it would be desirable to add to existing boroughs certain other small towns in their neighbourhood. But the Government did not now propose to introduce any provision on the subject.

wished to ask a question on which considerable interest was felt, and on which important considerations would hinge. He wished to know whether the property which was to confer the franchise in counties was to consist of land and buildings as in boroughs, and in what proportion of each; and whether the property was to be rated in the same manner.

said, that though the noble Lord had given an estimate of the addition that would be made by the Bill to the Borough constituency, yet he had not given the slightest estimate as to the probable addition of voters to the county constituency.

had understood the noble Lord to intimate that the Returns by which he had computed the number of electors to be added to the boroughs had already been presented or would be laid on the table of the House in the course of that evening or to-morrow. The noble Lord also stated that the payment of rates was to form part of the qualification for boroughs as now; but he wished to know whether the payment of rates must be made by the tenant himself, or whether it might be made by any other person on his behalf? With regard to the general scheme proposed, he thought the House seemed to be of opinion that it would be very desirable to postpone any discussion on the matter until the Bill was laid before it; and the only observation he wished now to make was that, the more he reflected on the subject, the more he was convinced that the old distinction between counties and boroughs ought to be maintained, and he thought that the noble Lord would find, if he wished that property should be fairly represented, that it ought to be maintained to a greater extent than the proposed Bill provided.

said, he desired to correct what he thought somewhat erroneous views of the past history of reform since the period of the introduction of the measure which the noble Lord had formerly submitted to the House. At the time when the first Reform Bill was brought under the notice of Parliament a franchise of £10 was a real line of demarcation between the working classes and those who were considered the classes above them. A few years after the measure had been passed, the working men of England considered they had been systematically excluded from participating in the representation of the people. Now, the noble Lord had laid before the House a measure which was to enfranchise some 200,000 people in the boroughs and towns of the country; but he had also stated that the working classes in general paid a rent of at least £7. The House knew full well that the population within the towns might be estimated at about 2,000,000 of inhabitants. Was it possible to suppose, that with so large a population as this, if the measure would really enfranchise the respectable working artizans, no more than 200,000 would be added to the register? He believed the solution of the difficulty was this, that a great number of working men occupied not an entire house but a part of a house. He had expected, therefore, that the noble Lord would have told them what were his views with respect to those who occupied only a part of a house within the limits of a borough. Some explanation on the subject was certainly due to the House, and he was anxious it should be given by the noble Lord. He did not desire to express any opinion upon the Bill generally, but he would ask whether it was expedient to pass a very small measure of reform which would only lay the foundation for considerable excitement and great agitation throughout the country, without affording any efficient means for allaying that agitation.

wished to know whether, if this Bill became law, it would be necessary to have recourse to a dissolution of Parliament.

said, the proposition of the noble Lord would cause great disappointment throughout the country, and complained that there was to be no addition to the Members representing the present Metropolitan boroughs. He contended that the largest of the constituencies to which it was proposed to add one Member was much below any of the metropolitan districts, both in population and property.

said, that the Bill, so far as it related to the re-apportionment of representation, would greatly disappoint the people of Scotland.

said, the noble Lord had omitted to state what addition would be made to the county constituencies by the measure which he had proposed. He had intimated that the county representation would be increased by a certain number of Members, and that information was necessary in order to complete his statement.

inquired, whether, as in the old Reform Bill, there was anything in the present measure respecting polling places.

said, there was no provision in the Bill respecting polling places. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) did not understand the £10 county franchise. Where the occupation consisted jointly of land and buildings, the noble Lord said that the qualification for counties would be of the same character as that for boroughs, namely, a house or building, held separately or jointly with land. If the building were a dwelling-house no question of value would be raised; but if it were not, and were some building other than a dwelling-house, then it was provided that the building should be of a value equal to half of the qualification—that was to say, it would be required that where the building was not a dwelling-house it should be of the clear yearly value of £5. That proposition, he need not say, was intended to prevent a few boards being run up to meet the requirements of the Act in order to create fictitious votes; but in the case of a dwelling-house no such provision would be required. In reply to the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) he had to state that they could not give the same accurate information as to the increase of votes in counties under the Bill as the noble Lord had done with respect to boroughs, and the difficulty arose principally from the circumstance to which he had just referred. They had obtained accurate information with regard to the number of occupiers of a certain amount of rental in boroughs, and they could do the same in respect of counties; but it was not enough to show the number of persons holding occupations between £10 and £50 in counties. Though that would show the maximum number to be added under any circumstances, it would not show the deduction—and it would probably be a large one—which would have to be made as regarded those qualifications where the occupation consisted partly of land and partly building, and where the building was to be of a certain value. The rate books did not supply that- particular information. Returns already on the table showed the number of persons occupying under the different classes, and further information would be laid before the House on the subject.

Having had the honour of a seat in the Parliament which passed the last Reform Bill, and having heard the noble Lord propose that Bill, I cannot help contrasting his gallant spirit on that occasion with his very subdued tone this evening. I congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite, because no violence can possibly be done to their feelings by the small measure now proposed. When the old Reform Bill was introduced I remember a highly respectable metropolitan banker rising in his place behind the noble Lord and saying that the scheme actually took away his breath. Nobody's breath has been taken away by the present proposal, though some of us seem to be deprived of our powers of speech. We hear none of the Reformers from Birmingham and elsewhere coming forward with the schemes about which they have been agitating the country, and which certainly go far beyond that of the noble Lord. Twenty-eight years have elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, and when the noble Lord abandoned the doctrine of finality to which he so obstinately clung, I think we had reason to expect that a real change—a real extension of the franchise—which would have conferred electoral privileges on the working classes generally. What has happened within the last few years? In 1852 the noble Lord brought in a bad Bill, to which nobody listened. In 1854 he brought in another Bill, which was ten times better than the one he has just submitted. The noble Lord, therefore, is not so good a Reformer now, as he was six years ago. The Bill of 1854 proposed wholly to disfranchise 19 rotten and nomination boroughs, and it also took one Member from 33 other boroughs. We have now a mild measure, by which one Member is taken from 25 boroughs, and not a single word is said about disfranchisement. Calne and other pocket boroughs are not included in the scheme, and yet formerly the noble Lord's princiciples were that as long as nomination boroughs existed the seeds of a further and a necessary reform would remain sown. Will not nomination boroughs be left after the passing of this Bill? Of course they will, and the noble Lord's object must therefore be to have the question of Reform mooted every Session in this House. We want a lodger franchise. It is totally impossible that a Bill which adds only 200,000 voters to the borough constituencies can satisfy the working classes of this country. What was the promise—I will say the compact—made with these men in 1831–2? They were disappointed then because they were excluded from the franchise; and they were told, "Keep quiet; your time will come, and we shall then give votes to the working classes." Depending on this promise, they rallied round the Reformers of 1831–2 for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," and have been waiting patiently ever since for something to be done in their behalf. But what will this Bill do for them? I remember that Lord Althorp, who was then the leader of this House, being present at a dinner given by Sir Frances Burdett on the introduction of the Reform Bill, said, "To tell you the truth, I think this Bill but a very poor concern; and the only thing which makes me regard it more favourably is that when the Bill was settled by the Cabinet we sent a copy of it to Lord John Russell and Mr. Stanley"(now Lord Derby), who were not then Members of the Cabinet. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Nothing of the kind.] Does the noble Lord mean to say he was a Member of the Cabinet? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice) was not there, and if so he will remember the circumstance. "The only thing," added Lord Althorp, "which gives me hopes of the Bill is, that when Stanley saw it he wrote to me and said, What a pretty kick-up you are going to make in the country!'" And when he heard that, Lord Althorp did think something of the Bill. Mr. Stanley was quite right; there was a pretty kick-up. The Bill was passed under great pressure. We had 100,000 men threatening us from Birmingham; there was a run upon the Bank for gold; there were fires in different parts of the country; a black flag was hoisted from the steeples of the Glasgow churches; and, amid these scenes, the measure was carried. There will be no such kick-up in favour of the present Bill, I'm sure. Then, I should like to know whether the Government intend this Bill to be a "finality" measure, or whether they mean it shall be amended from year to year? There is certainly one great blemish in it. Not one word has been said by the noble Lord about registration. One great complaint now is the difficulty of registration. We want more frequent registration. The noble Lord said the payment of poor-rates is to be the condition of registration, but I say that the payment of no rate or tax ought to be a condition of the enjoyment of the franchise. Why, at present it sometimes takes two years before a man can get in the register; and I say we ought to have a registration every quarter. As to the proposed redistribution of seats it is impossible to call that anything like a reform Bill. Another blemish in this scheme is, that no notice is taken of lodgers. There are men paying £10 or £15 a year rent, but living in lodgings; they have, and are to have, no vote; those men are respectable mechanics, and educated men, who are quite fit for the franchise. The fact is that in the metropolis and in large cities and towns you cannot find such a thing as a £6 house. A house of £20 or £30 is occupied by two or three families, and the head of each of them is entitled to have the franchise. If you do not give it to them, they will be discontented, and agitation will go on from year to year. What the decision of Parliament will be as to this measure I cannot say, but I am sure, whether it be its adoption or rejection, it will be a matter of perfect indifference to the great body of the people.

said, he had supported, in common with his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House, all the provisions of the Reform Bill of 1832; but in following his hon. Friend upon the present occasion he felt bound to express his belief that the measure which the noble Lord had just brought under their consideration would be hailed by the people of England as one of a very beneficial character. The £6 franchise would bring within the limits of our electoral system a large number of industrious people, who would, he felt convinced, use their new right justly. He wished to repeat a question which had been already put by an hon. Gentleman oppo- site, and that was whether the measure was to lead to an immediate dissolution of Parliament.

also wished to repeat a question which had been put by another Member—namely, what was the number of persons who were likely to be added to the county constituency under the £10 franchise?

said, he had to state, in reply to a question which had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, that the Government did not propose any alteration in the existing law with regard to the payment of the poor rate. The tenant would be obliged to pay the poor-rate as at present, and he would have the same facilities of having himself put on the rate-book which he now enjoyed. With regard to another question which had been put by two hon. Members, he had to state that he did not think he would be justified in attempting to define what would be the number of £10 voters in counties. From a return which he held in his hand it appeared that the number of persons in England, rated at between £10 and £50 was 381,000, and that the number of persons in England and Wales so rated was 415,000; but that return included many people who were freeholders rated at £10, and others; and therefore it afforded no accurate test of the number of electors. He had also been asked whether it would be necessary that the passing of that Bill should be immediately followed by a dissolution of Parliament; and in reply to that question he had to state that what the Bill proposed was, that at the November registration the claim to the franchise should be made, and, of course, when the November registration was completed it would be competent to the Crown to dissolve Parliament and to summon a new one at any time that might be thought necessary or convenient.

said, that in consequence of what had just fallen from the noble Lord, he wished to know whether any change was intended in respect of the Compound Householders Act passed a few years since? That Act gave the franchise to the tenant whose landlord paid the rates, and he wished to know whether it would be applicable to those who would be enfranchised under this Bill.

We propose to make no change in relation to this matter.

said, that in municipal boroughs where the landlord paid the rate, the tenant was entitled to vote. He hoped there would be no change, for a departure from the present arrangement in that respect would falsify all the promises of the present measure as far as the working classes were concerned.

wished to direct the attention of the noble Lord to one point in which he (Mr. Roebuck) must confess that he felt a special interest. Among the towns to which the noble Lord would give an additional representative Leeds was included, while Sheffield was excluded from the list. But if the noble Lord would look to the returns upon the subject he would grant that Sheffield at present possessed a larger constituency than Leeds.

would not now enter into the details of the Bill, but he could not view without alarm one of its characteristics, which seemed to be the transference of borough Members to the counties. He doubted whether the liberal party had anything to gain by such a transfer. Looking at the enormous expense of a county election, and the class of persons returned from counties, he doubted whether the representation that would result would be more in consonance with the feelings of the liberal side of the House than at present.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill further to amend the laws relating to the Representation of the People of Ireland, and said: Sir, in moving for leave to introduce the proposals of the Government with respect to Ireland, I shall not enter into any topic which would be likely to give rise to any protracted discussion, and I shall content myself with stating as briefly and as clearly as I can the effect which the change in the existing: laws I have to announce on the part of the Government would be likely to have on the constituencies of Ireland; and I shall leave all questions of argument to be dealt with on a future occasion. We propose to adopt the same general rules for the amendment of the representation of the people in that country which my noble Friend has laid down for the attainment of the same object in England; but the House will easily understand that, as the law which regulates the qualification of electors in Ireland is framed on a different model from that which has been adopted in Great Britain, the two schemes must necessarily vary in some of their details. An Act was passed for Ireland in the year 1850, on the subject of the Parliamentary Franchise, which has put an end to many controversies of long standing, and has, I believe, given general satisfaction in its working. Ireland also enjoys the benefit of one uniform, clear, and intelligible system of valuation, which is now rapidly approaching completion, and that valuation we propose shall form the test of the qualification under the new Irish Reform Bill. Ireland has in this respect a great advantage over England which has no such uniform system of valuation. What we propose to do in Ireland is this:—We propose that the present £12 qualification for a vote in the counties in Ireland shall be reduced to £10, and that the £8 Irish borough qualification shall be reduced to £6. The House will naturally be desirous to know what effect that change will produce on those two classes of constituencies. According to the returns of the last registration—returns which will be immediately laid before the House—the county returns in Ireland give a collective constituency of 174,000; and if we add to that number all those persons who are rated at from £10 to £12 the total addition to the county constituency would be 40,126. But if you apply to that list the correction which I believe is right and necessary, and if you make a due allowance for females, minors, double occupations, and absences, the total increase under the proposed change may be calculated at 30,000; making on the whole a county constituency of 204,000. The borough voters at present amount to 30,700, and the addition which the proposed change would make to that number would, at first sight, appear to be 7557; but, making a correction corresponding with that which I have made for the counties, the real addition would amount to only 6655. The total number of the constituent body at present in the counties and boroughs of Ireland is 204,000 and the Bill would raise that number to about 240,000. That is the way in which the franchises of £10 and £6 will operate in extending the county and borough constituencies in Ireland. I now come to a change, perhaps of no great magnitude, which we propose to make with respect to the qualification of freemen in Ireland. At the time of the Reform Bill a different qualification with regard to freemen was adopted in England and Ireland. But we propose that for the future, in the case of freemen qualifying after the passing of this Bill, the English law upon that subject shall operate in Ireland. I will now proceed to state the changes which we intend to introduce in the distribution of the Irish representation. Ireland is a country the population of which is not generally located in large towns; its inhabitants do not, as a general rule, congregate in large towns to anything like the same extent as the people of England and of Scotland. At present 32 Irish counties have 64 seats in this House; 33 Irish boroughs have 39 seats; and I Irish university has two seats—making a total of 105 seats. There is not a single borough in Ireland to which the principle of partial disfranchisement will apply under the rule which it is proposed to adopt in England, that no town with a population of less than 7,000 should return two Members. No town in Ireland returning that number of Members has a population much short of 30,000. Wexford, which is the smallest town on the list, has a population, according to the last census, of 29,000. We cannot, therefore, obtain an additional seat in Ireland for populous places by applying to that country the rule we have adopted with respect to England. Neither, on the other hand, do we find in Ireland unrepresented towns of the size of Birkenhead, Staley bridge, and other English towns, which at present return no Members to Parliament. But there are two constituencies in Ireland—one a county and the other a city constituency—which in population, in the value of their property, and in the number of their electors, stand entirely apart from all the other counties and boroughs in that kingdom. These are the constituencies of the great county of Cork, and of the city of Dublin, and we propose that henceforward the county of Cork and the city of Dublin shall each have three Members, the two new seats thus assigned being taken out of the four formerly belonging to boroughs in England, whose right to return Members has recently been abolished by Act of Parliament. The claim of the Queen's University to return a represent- ative naturally arose for consideration when the claim of the London University to such a privilege was allowed; and I should be extremely glad if it had been in my power to ask the House to express its approbation of the Queen's University in Ireland by assigning to it a Representative in this House. I hope the day may come, and that many years will not elapse before it does come, when Parliament will think it right to grant to the Queen's University in Ireland the privilege of returning a Representative to this House. But at present, looking at the small number of years during which that University has been established, and—what is the governing consideration in such a matter—the number of its members, and the probable weight of opinion which its representative would bring with him into this House, I am afraid it would not be considered right that we should make any such proposal as yet. The total number of the graduates now amounts to only 260, some of whom are not residing in Ireland; and, under those circumstances, I think it would be impossible at the present moment that we should seek to give the right of representation to the Queen's University. There is another subject connected with Ireland on which we propose to legislate upon the present occasion. I had the honour of presenting this evening a petition signed by a large proportion of the Peers of Ireland, who complain of the anomalous condition in which they stand under that clause of the Act of Union which defines their legal and constitutional status. They ask why, if it is thought right that it should be open to them to represent constituencies in Great Britain, with whom it cannot be expected they should have any great community of sympathy or interest, they should be prevented by express enactment, from representing their Friends and neighbours with whom their interests are specially associated, and whose confidence they are most likely to enjoy? We propose to remove that disqualification. We propose that they shall be enabled to stand towards their friends and neighbours, the constituencies of Ireland, in that relation in which they now stand to the constituencies of England. With regard to matters of a purely administrative character—such as the time occupied in county elections, the number of polling places, and all arrangements for diminishing the expense or the excitement of contested elections—the House is aware that those subjects are regulated by a special Act of Parliament, and not by that which determines the qualifications of electors; and I do not, therefore, mean to deal with them in this measure. What we now propose with regard to Ireland is shortly this: to make the county franchise in that country a £10 franchise, to make the borough franchise a £6 franchise, to give an additional Representative to the great county of Cork, and another to the city of Dublin, out of the seats which have been suppressed in England, and to remove the disqualification which at present renders Irish Peers ineligible as the representatives of Irish constituencies. I trust that by such a measure we shall give satisfaction to the people of Ireland and increase the value and the efficiency of the representation of the people in that part of the United Kingdom.

said, he was not disposed to complain either of the general provisions of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the manner in which he had brought it under the consideration of the House. All he doubted was that there was the necessity for the introduction of any such measure at all. This would be the fifth Reform Bill they had had for Ire land. When the Union was carried 200 seats were abolished and some boroughs bought up. In 1827, Sir Robert Peel thought it right to change the whole country franchise into a £10 freehold franchise. They then had the Reform Bill of 1832, and then the Bill proposed by the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman, which gave a £12 occupation franchise for counties and £8 for boroughs. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given no reason why that law should be changed now. One thing, he thought, had escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The county of Cork was divided; there was a west and an east riding each of which had a separate electoral system. He thought the right hon. Member fell into an error in giving a third Member for the whole county, and he supposed that he meant to give the additional Member to the west riding.

wanted to know, whether, by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, there was to be any disfranchisement of freemen in Ireland? He was certainly surprised at one part of the project—which on the first blush he regarded with some apprehension—namely, the admission of Irish Peers to that House as representatives of Irish constituencies. That class of the community had already the right of sending representatives to the other House of Parliament, and he believed the proposition to which he had referred would have the effect of increasing a power which at present certainly operated very much to the prejudice of the popular party, and in favour of the great territorial proprietors. He wished to ask a question as to the probable time when the Bill would come into operation. There would be a registry of voters under the Bill, and he presumed it would be effected at the time mentioned by the noble Lord with reference to England—probably about the month of November. What he wanted to know was, how long the voter would require to be on the roll before he could exercise the franchise—six months or a longer period?

wished to know whether the qualification was to he a rating or an occupation one?

wished to contradict in the most unqualified terms the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the freeman franchise had a most injurious effect upon the representation of Ireland. He was perfectly sure that the protestant freemen of Dublin, and he might say of Cork also, had always exercised the franchise for the benefit of their country. No case of corruption had been made out against them for the last three-quarters of a century. He regretted, as well as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside), that the light hon. Gentleman should have been advised to make any change in the Irish franchise after the number of Reform Bills that they had already had for that country, and he did not despair of inducing him, after discussion, to retrace his steps. He (Mr.Vance) did not clearly apprehend what was the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's plan with regard to freemen. It was evident that he did not intend to disfranchise them, because he said that he intended to put them on the same footing as freemen in England. Now he believed that the freemen of Ireland acquired their franchise in precisely the same manner as those of England.

, following the example of the hon. Member for Middlesex, begged to return thanks for the additional Member proposed to be given to Cork, of which he (Mr. Scully) was now sole representative. He returned thanks, however, for the county and not for himself, because the additional seat would only increase his chances of having a contest at future elections. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that it was quite unjust to retain the modern principle which rendered it necessary for every voter to pay his poor rate before he could be placed upon the register. He had frequently argued the point with persons who began by holding the opposite view, but they had always ended by admitting that the law was untenable. He occupied a house in Dublin for which he had to pay a consolidated rate amounting to about £36, but of that only £6 was for the poor; and why should he be obliged to pay that any more than the other rates as a condition precedent to being registered as a voter? This was a very important point, and he therefore wished to direct attention to it before any final resolution was come to on the subject, either with regard to this or to the English Bill. The late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Justice Fitz-Gerald) had occupied a house in Dublin for four years; but at the last revision it was found (hat his predecessor owed 3s. or 4s. of his poor rates, which had not until lately been discovered; and the result had been that the learned Judge was for the present year disqualified. At the last Sligo revision it had been found that a collector, who happened to be a politician, had neglected to apply for the last rate to persons of the opposite party, while he had actually entered as paid persons on his own side who had not paid for several weeks after the date alleged. A gentleman had likewise told him (Mr. Scully) that out of forty persons on his estate who ought to he voters only four or five actually enjoyed the franchise, and they were all on one side; the custom being to strike a poorrate just before the time came round for revising the list. Such were a few instances illustrating the working of the present law, and he trusted that they would meet with the serious attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

should not have risen to prolong the discussion had it not been for the strong feeling which he entertained against the right hon. Gentleman's proposition with regard to Irish Peers, a proposition which would render more necessary than ever some means for protecting voters in the exercise of their privilege. It could hardly fail to increase the pressure upon the tenants of the large landed estates which belonged to many of the Irish Peers. The tenant voters had not, at present, free action at elections. Their number was to be increased, and without the ballot the evils they complained of would be increased also. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) had spoken of the freemen as an immaculate body; but he was authorised to say that within a quarter of a century 1,500 freemen of the city of Dublin had been bought at a particular election for the sum of £3 ahead, so that £4,500 was paid for their votes at that election, and he might state that the Gentleman who had the misfortune to pay the money was now in that House.

said, that as hon. Gentlemen from the sister country seem to object to have two additional seats which had formerly belonged to England given to Ireland, he should be happy to accept them for Scotland, which he was afraid was not going to get quite her fair share of the representation.

strongly objected to that part of the Bill which empowered Irish Peers to represent Irish constituencies. The Irish people had not asked for such a thing; and he maintained that it was not only a most improper proposal, but contrary to the Treaty of Union.

quite agreed that the proposition to which the hon. Member who had spoken last had alluded, was a most extraordinary one to find its way into a Bill to amend the Representation of the People. He wished, also, to point out that the assumed uniformity between the qualification for the franchise in Ireland and England was more specious than real, owing to the difference in the letting of property.

asked the reason why two seats had been filched from England to be bestowed on Ireland? Was it that Ireland was more populous and wealthy, or because Irish Members were so much more useful in the House than English Members? The claim advanced by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) for an additional Member for that town, had not been answered; and until the claim of that and other large towns in England had been satisfied, the Government had no right to dispose of the four vacant seats in other ways.

said, that the proposition with regard to the Irish Peers struck him as most extraordinary, and he believed it would give great dissatisfaction in Ireland. An Irish Peer was neither fish nor flesh in his own country; but to give him the power of representing the people when he was represented himself in the House of Peers, was a most absurd proposition, and one which he imagined would not be accepted in that House. He agreed with his hon. Friend near him, that the proposed franchise for Ireland would not establish anything like nominal uniformity between the two countries. The people in Ireland lived so much lower than in England, that the class which in England was rated at £6, would probably not be rated at more than £4 in Ireland.

cordially joined in the opposition to the proposal with regard to Irish Peers. The reason of that proposal was hard to guess at, though he had some dim notion of it. He had seen visions of Gentlemen called Irish Peers, who had failed, with all their Irish persuasiveness, to secure the confidence of English constituencies, dismally haunting the precincts of the House like ghosts. It was in obedience to the application of gentlemen of this kind, not to the demands of the nation, that the right hon. Gentleman was ready to interfere with the solemn compact made by the Act of Union. If the right hon. Gentleman was so ready to meddle with the Act of Union, he would point out to him a way in which he could provide for these gentlemen. Why did he not send them to what was called, in the cant phrase of the House, "another place"?—to use an argument applied sometimes in favour of purgatory, they "might go further and fare worse." According to the British Constitution Peers had no right to interfere in elections, and he hoped the Government would not proceed with this monstrous and revolutionary proposal. With regard to the county franchise, there was no substantial equality between a £10 franchise in England and a £10 franchise in Ireland. It ought to be reduced in Ireland to £8 or £7 to bring about a complete uniformity. It was unjust to complain of two additional Members being given to Ireland; for even that addition would not do them justice. 105 Members was not a fair proportion for Ireland, taking into account the relative population and wealth of England and Ireland.

said, that on the mere introduction of the Bill it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of the proposition for enabling Irish Peers to sit for Irish counties or boroughs, which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) described as a revolutionary measure. But he wished to explain to the House the reasons why the Government made that proposition, leaving the House to judge whether these reasons were not sufficient, and whether the Conservative susceptibilities of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were not prematurely awakened. The Act of Union in the 4th Article contained a provision which declared that any person holding a Peerage in Ireland should not be disqualified from representing any county, city, or borough in Great Britain; but that as long as he so continued a Member of the House of Commons he should not be entitled to the privilege of peerage nor to serve as a Representative Peer for Ireland, nor to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland. Such were the securities which the Act of Union provided against the privilege of the peerage being abused in the case of Irish Peers having seats in that House for English or Scotch counties or boroughs. That House was led for many years by the son of an Irish Peer (Lord Castlereagh) who sat for the county of Down. After the death of his father he succeeded to the Irish peerage, and thus became ineligible to sit for an Irish county; but he sat for an English borough. That was a remarkable instance of an Irish Peer possessing the right to sit and vote in the English House of Commons. During the time he so sat there, neither he nor any other Irish Peer, in a similar position, was entitled to sit as a Representative Peer, nor to vote at their election. The objection therefore as to a confusion of rights was not well founded. By the provision which they proposed to introduce, the Government were merely extending the rule, which now existed with respect to England and Scotland, to Ireland. They deprived no person of his rights. All they did was to say that the disqualification which now attached to Irish voters, of not being allowed, if they thought fit, to elect an Irish Peer as their representative, should be abolished. That was in fact the whole extent of the proposal.

thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had misunderstood the objection which was raised. It was not that an Irish Peer, by being elected to represent an Irish constituency, would in his own person be twice represented, but that a double representation would be thus given to the body of which he was a Member. He regarded this clause of the Bill as having a most mischievous tendency. He had never been opposed to any rational measure of reform, but it seemed to him that the present proposal amounted merely to a reduced, and not a discriminating franchise. There were other classes with qualifications higher than mere property who might be admitted with advantage. A. complaint was often made in Ireland that territorial influence was unduly exercised over the lower orders, and without discussing the justice of that complaint it was evident that the interference of the Irish nobility in elections must greatly tend to increase the power of the landlords.

said, there was one objection which applied to both the Bills which had been proposed,—namely, the provision which made the exercise of the right of voting dependent on the payment of rates. He thought that every man who was rated should be entitled to exercise the franchise. Numbers of persons were now disfranchised simply because they happened to be out of town when the rates were payable. Too much power was now placed in the hands of the collectors.

said, several Members had mentioned the proposal to reduce the Irish franchise for counties from £12 to £10. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that any portion of the new Irish franchise should have reference to houses or tenements.

In reply to the question of my hon. Friend I will state that the reduced franchise, as proposed by this Bill, will follow and be based upon that excellent statute which was introduced by my right hon. Friend himself. With regard to the freemen, as to whom I was also interrogated, the law in England limits the power of taking up their freedom to those who have acquired it by birth or servitude. The Irish law includes another element. We propose to limit that franchise to the two conditions imposed by the English Act, and to make it in all respects the same as in England. With regard to the date at which this registration will come into effect, my earnest hope and expectation is that it will receive the Royal Assent in sufficient time to come into operation before the period at which the revision of the voters' lists is made. On that point I shall make exactly the same answer that was given to my noble Friend with regard to the English Bill, I proceed to state the grounds on which the addition has been made to the number of Irish representatives. We found that Cork county, according to the last census, contained a population of 563,000, and by the income tax returns was valued at £834,000, the number of electors on the last registry being 15,895. On comparing these figures with the English counties to which a third Member has been given, I think my noble Friend will find that there was ample reason for adding a third representative to the county of Cork. The city of Dublin contains a population of 254,000, the income tax valuation is £989,000, and the body of registered electors is in number 10,660. If my noble Friend will compare the case of Dublin with that of Birmingham, he will see the reason why a third Member has been given to Dublin. The hon. Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. Maguire) complained that we had not added more largely to the number of representatives for Ireland; and the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) complained that I had withdrawn these two Members from England. One of these objections, I think, affords some facility in answering the other. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the speech of Lord Castlereagh in introducing the Act of Union into the Irish Parliament, he will find that the proposition was based on a comparison of the population and the returns of the revenue for the two kingdoms; and, if he will take into account the relative condition of the countries in the present day, I think he will be satisfied that in our proposals we have endeavoured to do justice to Ireland. As regards the objections taken with respect to the Irish Peers, we shall have an opportunity of discussing that question when the Bill is considered on its merits; I will only say that the proposal was made solely on public grounds and from a desire to remove what is at present an anomaly, and to place this matter on a more natural and reasonable footing. I can understand the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Dickson), that the Members of the Irish peerage should be represented only in the House of Lords. Extremely consoling this must be to the minority, not one of whom has his representative in the House of Peers, but if that argument be carried to its legitimate conclusion it would apply with equal force against their being allowed to sit for English or Scotch as for Irish constituencies. The intention of the proposal which I have the honour to submit is simply to enable the Irish electors to exercise their free choice in the selection of representatives, without being subject to any statutory disqualification. All I now request is permission to introduce the Bill.

Sir, in rising to ask permission to introduce a Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation in Parliament of the people of Scotland, I think I had better commence by relieving the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) with regard to the manner in which the two remaining seats are to be disposed of. Those two seats, he will be glad to hear, are to be given to Scotland; and I dare say he will agree with me that one of them could not be better disposed of than by bestowing it on the great and flourishing commercial community of Glasgow. The other Member, it is proposed, shall be given to the Universities of Scotland in the aggregate, to be elected by the four Universities; and I hope the House will entertain the opinion that we have well and justly, and, I trust it may prove in the end, beneficially disposed of the two seats which were within our control. With regard to the general provisions of the measure, they are as identical as circumstances permit with those proposed for England. The Bill proposes an occupation franchise of £10 in counties, and of £6 in boroughs. It proposes also to simplify the system of registration in Scotland. We are in the same fortunate position as Ireland in possessing a complete system of valuation, made up year by year, which shows the number of proprietors, tenants, and occupiers, and the value of all the property in the kingdom. We made an experiment in this direction some years ago, but we now propose to carry it a great deal further. We propose to make the Valuation Rolls the register of the proprietors, occupiers, and the qualifications as the basis of the franchise, dispense altogether with the re- gistration machinery of the Reform Bill, which in practice has been found exceedingly cumbrous. The Valuation Rolls will be the register, and we propose to do away altogether with the Registration Court. All the business of the Registry will be done by the assessors of counties and boroughs, with an appeal from them to the Court that meets in the month of October, and which, as far as the registration cases are concerned, will have very little to do, as every possible objection will be limited to a very few elements indeed. In Scotland the property franchise in counties has been £10 in freehold, or £50 for lands held on long lease. Some efforts have been made to introduce into Scotland the 40s. freeholds of England; but, on consideration, we have not thought it desirable to do so. In counties we propose to reduce the freehold franchise from £10 to £5, but that £5 must be without any deductions. It is desirable, to prevent the possibility of the franchise being abused, to provide that the value of the holding shall in no case be reduced by the burdens on it below £4. The great danger of the property franchise in Scotland is the creation of fictitious votes. Even the £10 franchise has been largely used for that purpose, and if it is reduced to £5 the facilities for this abuse will be still greater. It is, therefore, proposed that residence shall be enforced to give a right to the franchise, for all freeholds below £10 value. The valuation roll being the basis of the franchise, it will necessarily be a substantial one; and, having with it a clause compelling residence, it will, I hope, effectually prevent the manufacture of votes, for which purpose the small and widely scattered population of parts of Scotland gave greater facilities than existed in the populous counties of England. I do not know that there are any further observations that I need make to the House; and I now move for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, that great injustice was done to Scotland in the number of Members given to it. Scotland was entitled, on the fair basis of taxation and population combined, to nineteen additional Members; yet all the Government proposed was to give it two—one to the commercial city of Glasgow, the other to the four Universities. Other large cities, like Aberdeen and Dundee, and populous counties like Ayr and Lanark, were entitled on the basis of the English Bill to additional representatives; and he could not understand why, if Dublin was to have an additional representative, Edinburgh should be left out. He felt so strongly on the subject that in the event of the House agreeing to the second reading of the English Bill, he should move an instruction to the Committee to disfranchise at least four or five more English seats, in order to take some steps towards doing justice to Scotland.

, considering these three Bills as one measure, had one objection to make to it as a whole. It appeared to him that the principle on which the Government had proceeded was that of promoting uniformity in the franchise of the three kingdoms. Now, the Irish franchise would continue as hitherto, founded on rating. They had just heard from the Lord Advocate that the Scottish franchise would be founded on the valuation rolls, which was tantamount to a rating franchise—it was, in fact, as nearly as circumstances would admit, a rating franchise. He was sorry that the Government had determined on making the English franchise an exception to this rule of uniformity. He had long felt that the rating franchise, though not in the Bill of last year, would greatly simplify the franchise; and he hoped the Government would think it desirable to reconsider the matter, and adopt it for England as well as for Ireland and Scotland. The noble Lord had given as a reason that the rating was extremely unequal. He admitted the fact, but denied that it was an argument. It only showed that the law was not enforced. The inequality was created in the teeth of the law which required that property should be rated at its full value; and he believed that if the Government were to make the rating the basis of the franchise, it would tend in its result to put an end to the inequality of the rating. He trusted the noble Lord would reconsider this portion of the measure, and see whether it would not be possible to adopt the rating system for England as well as for Ireland and Scotland.

said, the subject of Reform occupied a much more prominent place in Scotland than in England, and he believed that the proposal of the Government would be considered a very moderate measure indeed by the reformers of Scotland, where there were more thinking men among the lower classes than in England, where education had been in a very advanced state for centuries, and where the labouring population were ac- customed to occupy themselves very much with public affairs. For his own part, however, he considered that the very moderation of the measure proved the sincerity of the Government in their desire to carry through a measure of reform during the present Session. The measure, it must also be admitted, had the merit of simplicity in its provisions. He did not see how the enfranchisement of a large portion of the working classes would be attained by a £10 qualification in counties, and he would like to know the proportion of persons of the working classes who occupied houses of that value. He should not approve of the admission to the franchise of the working classes in a mass, because their greater numbers would give to them an unfair preponderance of political power. He thought that it was not right, as the noble Lord the Member for the City had done, to promise enfranchisement to large portions of the working classes, which, in practice, it was not intended to give. He did not approve of the Government being, to any great extent, in the hands of the working classes, because they were so much more numerous than any other; but he maintained that the principle of admitting those classes to the franchise was not fully carried out by these measures. He held that the intelligent working men should be enfranchised, which was very different from admitting the whole of the working classes, and he believed that object would have been better effected by the Bill of the late Government.

, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) as to the bases upon which the Government proposed to form the franchises of England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively, said that the rating franchise had been maturely considered, and the Government were not likely to alter their views. The reason of the distinction between England, and Ireland, and Scotland was this:—In Ireland there was a valuation of all tenements upon uniform principles, and there was therefore no difficulty in adopting it as the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise. It was done some years ago, and it was to be observed that the franchise in Ireland was not only dependent on the payment of the rate, but was defined by the amount at which the tenement was rated. In Scotland that was not the case. The rating there was on the yearly value, as in England; but that yearly value, according to the proposal of the Lord Advocate, was measured by the amount on the valuation roll. The valuation roll was a valuation which was founded to a great extent upon the income-tax assessment, and was tolerably uniform throughout Scotland. Wherever there was such a valuation it was unquestionably a benefit to take it as the foundation of the franchise. But in English parishes such a valuation did not exist. The right hon. Baronet, who was a thorough master of all our rural economy, would not deny this. In England, unfortunately, no such uniformity of valuation existed, [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: But the law requires it.] The law, no doubt, required that the rate should be made up to the full value, but, unfortunately, there was no sufficient control exercised over the parish officers to secure uniformity, and there was a different mode of rating in different places. In some parishes they made a considerable reduction, and in others rated at the full value. If the franchise in England were based upon the unamended practice, the right hon. Gentleman would see that great inequality would remain and great injustice would be done. He would very much wish to see an Amendment in the English law in this respect, and if the House were not already occupied with many more Bills than they had time to consider he would undertake to propose a Bill to effect an uniform valuation. The Bill was already in existence, but if introduced it would not be with any view to the present Reform Bill; it would be with the object to amend the practice with respect to assessment. The reason why the Government followed one course in Ireland and Scotland, and another in England, was that they did not believe that under the existing practice there was such an uniform valuation as could be properly and justly taken as the foundation of the Parliamentary franchise.

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) that the proportion of Members allotted to Scotland was far less than justice required, though he supposed the Lord Advocate was unable to obtain the proportion which would be proper. He must, however, express his opinion, that the proposed registration of voters was a great improvement on the present system; and that it would be self-acting was also of great importance. He would suggest that there should be a central court to determine the law, because in Scotland the law differed in every part of the country. It gave him unqualified satisfaction to hear the Lord Advocate say he would follow the principle of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), but the promise was not fulfilled when the property franchise in Scotch counties, instead of being lowered to 40s, as in England, was limited to £5. He also understood that up to £10 there must be occupation as well as ownership, and, as he disapproved of a distinction which would deprive the provident working man of a vote for freehold property without residence, he should endeavour to amend the Bill in Committee. With regard to bribery and the manufacture of fictitious votes, he would suggest that the attempt should be punished as well as the act; because, when a bribe was once accepted, both parties were interested in concealing the whole matter; and, as to fictitious votes, those who created them should be punished by fine and deprivation of franchise for ever afterwards. Bribery in boroughs would never be properly prevented, unless the franchise was accompanied by a distinct provision that it should only be enjoyed by those who occupied the promises in respect of which they voted.

thought that Scotland was not so well treated as she ought to be as regarded the additional number of representatives. Adding only two was far below what it ought to be, seeing that their claim was as strong as that of Ireland, and more in proportion to its valuation. He questioned, moreover, whether the Bill of the Lord Advocate had done justice to them in other respects. He did not understand the question of the property vote, and whether it applied to counties or boroughs. He did not mean to give any opinion as to the amount of the property franchise, whether it was too large or too small; but he was of opinion that it ought to be the same as that of Ireland. If the Government, on full consideration, thought the 40s. franchise should be extended both to Ireland and Scotland, he had no objection; but he questioned whether it might not be a colourable franchise altogether.

said, that Scotland would only gain two seats taken from places so notoriously corrupt that they had been disfranchised. If Scotland was only to get seats from the disfranchisement of corrupt places, he thought that one or two other seats might have been gained in that way. The returns of population and property in Scotland showed that there were many constituencies so large as to render an addition to their representatives a mere matter of justice. On that ground and not merely for the purpose of increasing the number of Scotch Members he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

said, he had no doubt that the scheme which the Lord Advocate had submitted to the House would he received with disappointment in many quarters in Scotland. There were at least three constituencies in that country which might very naturally expect to be provided with additional representatives. The point, however, to which he wished more particularly to refer was the expediency of giving two instead of one representative to the four Scotch Universities. Those institutions were placed at a great distance from one another, and it would be found that when the constituency was made up it would be very large in numbers. In England there would be five university representatives; and it would be admitted that the Members sent by those constituencies were not the least efficient or distinguished. There was no reason to suppose that those sent by the Scotch Universities would be inferior to their colleagues in England.

was glad that the Government had undertaken, under favourable circumstances, to settle a long pending question—that of self-acting registration. The proposal was made with regard to England by the late Government; he therefore hoped that they would support it as applied to Scotland. As representative of the largest constituency (Lanarkshire) that was represented by one Member single-handed, he felt some disappointment that another Member had not been given to that important district. The population was about 200,000; exclusive of the boroughs represented, it contained many large towns that were not represented; and the way in which that county was treated would cause much dissatisfaction. Without wishing to say anything which might be deemed invidious, he thought they would have a better chance of getting eligible representatives for the counties than for some of the large towns to which it was proposed to give an increased number of Members. He saw no objection to the proposed property franchise. It was so nearly on a level with that proposed for England that only a microscopic eye could distinguish between them. Upon the whole he thought it a better franchise than the one now enjoyed in England; but it was open to grave doubt whether residence ought to be required to form part of the qualification. As to the claim on the ground of right on the part of the Scotch, he could bear the strongest testimony to that feeling, for he had nearly lost his seat because he supported the Bill of the late Government, which rendered such scant justice to Scotland. But he feared they were about to receive less from the present Government.

suggested to the Lord Advocate that, instead of giving Glasgow a third member, the two new representatives to be bestowed on Scotland should both be given to the Universities. It was obvious that the alterations proposed to be made in the representative system in Scotland were much more considerable than those with regard to England and Ireland, and therefore until he saw the precise mode in which his right hon. Friend intended to work out his scheme he would abstain from expressing any opinion on it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in doing what he could to prevent the creation of fictitious votes he should have his most cordial assistance. He must confess, however, he doubted very much whether the proposal of creating a £5 qualification in the county, and at the same time not dealing with the question of heritable burdens, would be the means of accomplishing that object. Some years ago a Committee of the House investigated the system of fictitious votes which existed in Scotland; and one of the principal remedies which they suggested was that there should be a deduction of heritable debts from the property qualification in Scotland, without which, they said, fictitious votes could never be stopped. For his own part, he quite concurred in that recommendation. As to registration, he was not sure that the plan of the Lord Advocate would work quite so smoothly in all its features as he anticipated; but he thought some such plan as he had described might be beneficially introduced. He would, however, wait until he saw the Bill itself before he offered any opinion on this point.

wished to remark that upon all the principles which had been announced by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary it seemed perfectly obvious that the Government could have come to no other conclusion than that which they had done, namely, that Glasgow should have another Member. When they were increasing the representatives of Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, he did not see how they could overlook the claims of Glasgow, which was larger than either of them. No doubt Lanarkshire was a large and populous county, but as between Lanarkshire and Glasgow there could be no difference of opinion. As to the Universities of Scotland, he was glad they were at length to be represented in Parliament; he thought it a disgrace that they had not been represented before.

thanked the learned Lord Advocate for the two additional Members he proposed to give to Scotland, but regretted that there were not more given. He thought the Bill for England would be much improved by taking away some of the double Members given to insignificant boroughs and transferring them to the large constituencies of Scotland. He thought that the adoption of the valuation roll as the test of qualification would tend to prevent the creation of fictitious votes, but did not believe that the residence which the right hon. Gentleman insisted on would have that effect in any degree whatever.

said, he could not sit tamely by and hear it said that the Bill would not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland. He had no hesitation in stating that it would give satisfaction. Residence, he thought, should be the qualification for being on the register. As to the 40s. freehold generally throughout Scotland, there was no desire to possess that qualification. He had never heard such a wish expressed in his own county.

understood that the franchise, as defined by the learned Lord, was a £10 occupancy in counties, and a £6 occupancy in burghs. Then there was to be a deduction of the few duty; that, he understood, was not to be made unless it exceeded one-fifth of the value. There was also to be a £4 proprietorship in counties, but with residence. He wished to know if proprietors at £10, who were non-resident, were to be abolished?

thought the distribution of Members to Scotland had been very scanty. His own constituency, which equalled that of twelve minor boroughs in England, and was remarkable for intelligence and industry—Aberdeen, the seat of universities for centuries—had a right, and did look forward, to have another Member; and the decision of the learned Lord would be received in the North with disappointment and mortification. He approved of giving one of the two Members available to the Scotch Universities; but with so many small boroughs in England, there should have been no difficulty in finding the means of doing more justice to the claims of the large towns in Scotland.

pointed out an anomaly which existed in the burgh which be represented, with reference to the interval that must elapse between the issue of the writ by the sheriff and the nomination, a much larger space being required than in any county of Scotland, being not less than ten nor more than sixteen days. He hoped every means would be adopted to prevent the manufacture of fictitious votes in counties. At present the practice was to convey a cottage to a workman, taking at the same time a secret hack bond to return it when called upon.

said, there ought to be a further distribution of seats in favour of Scotland. The representation of that country was very pure. Scarcely was there ever a petition presented against the returns from that part of the United Kingdom. He warned the Government against not satisfying Scotland. The Scotch Members were a compact phalanx, under the leadership of the Lord Advocate, and might be very troublesome unless their reasonable demands were complied with.

wished to know, whether the Bill of the Lord Advocate would contain any provision for giving additional polling places in Scotland. In the county he represented the number of electors would be more than doubled and additional polling places would certainly be required.

said, that there was a provision for increasing the polling places. He did not propose to enforce residence where the property was above £10. To prevent fictitious votes the receipt for feu duty would be produced where the property combined with residence was under £4. He would not go into extraneous matters. It was most desirable to have the benefit of the self-acting principle of the valuation roll. There would have been more justice in the complaints of some of his hon. Friends if this was a real adjustment of the proportion of representatives between the three kingdoms, but it was nothing of the kind; it was merely the distribution of four vacant scats; and he certainly thought, under the circumstances, it was fair enough to give one to Cork, one to Dublin, one to Glasgow, and one to the Scotch Universities.

urged upon the Government the importance of a new valuation system in Scotland, a measure which would greatly facilitate the carrying out of the franchise.

said, the Bill not having yet been read the second time, it was contrary to the practice of the House that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The right course for the hon. Gentleman to take would be to move for a Committee to inquire into the subject to which the Bill related, and then, if he thought fit, he might bring the provisions of the measure before the attention of such Committee.

said, this subject had been fully investigated by a Select Committee only a year or two ago, and it would now be idle to send it before another Committee. The reference of that particular Bill to a Select Committee was, however, quite a distinct question.

objected to the composition of the proposed Committee. It would have upon it four metropolitan Members, who, as only five were to constitute a quorum, would obviously be able to exercise an undue preponderance in its deliberations. If those four Members should have the majority in the Committee, its report, judging from past experience, would entail a very liberal, not to say lavish, expenditure of the public money. It might possibly be said that the Members for Westminster and Marylebone ought to sit on the Committee, because the question to come before it materially affected the health and comfort of their constituents. Now, there could not be the smallest objection to the people of Westminster and Marylebone cleaning out what might be called their own cesspool at their own cost; but if, because the Serpentine ran into Hyde Park, which was part of the Royal domains, the clearing out of it was to be regarded not as a local, but as a national undertaking, it was the duty of that House, as the guardian of the public purse, to take care that the Committee should be a thoroughly impartial one. That, however, could not be the case, if so many metropolitan Members, whose constituents were immediately interested in a large and reckless outlay of the public money in this matter, were to form part of the tribunal. Any Member serving on a Committee appointed to examine a group of Private Bills was required to make a solemn declaration that his constituents were neither directly nor indirectly interested in the question on which he was to sit in judgment. The same rule ought to be applied in the present instance. He meant to offer no personal disrespect to the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone; but, as it was the manifest interest of those whom they represented that "a thorough good job" should be made of this matter, regardless of expense, he maintained that they could not bring a calm and unbiassed judgment to bear upon it. He must, therefore, take exception to the nomination of those hon. Members, and he should begin by moving the omission of the name of Sir John Shelley.

said, that in selecting the names his desire had been to place on the Committee all the hon. Gentlemen who had evinced a special interest in the question that was to be referred to them. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had taken part last year in the debates on the subject of the Serpentine, and had directed his attention to the question in various forms; it was, therefore, only natural that he should be put upon the Committee. It was impossible to admit the force of the argument based on the fact that the hon. Baronet was a metropolitan Member. His constituents had no special interest in that matter. The electors of Westminster were not the only people who suffered from the present state of the Serpentine. It would be just as reasonable to say that no metropolitan Member should be allowed to sit on a Committee to inquire into the unwholesome smells arising from the Thames.

thought the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last deserved great credit for his efforts to mystify a simple question. The question was whether they were to permit the system to continue by which for years past the grossest jobs for the benefit of the metropolis, and against the general interests of the country, had been perpetrated. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the four metropolitan Members now nominated had displayed, and very naturally, a deep interest in this question; but for that very reason they ought not to be placed on a Committee of which five Members were to form a quorum. It was, no doubt, the interest of the metropolis that the Serpentine should be cleansed out in the shortest possible time, and entirely at the public expense; and those four hon. Gentlemen could not be blamed if they exerted themselves on behalf of those who elected them to convert a strictly local undertaking into an Imperial one. Such a principle, however, was nothing less than downright spoliation. The metropolitan Members had great facilities for serving their constituents at the cost of the country. They could band themselves together in a compact body any day; and when so united he must say—without intending to offer them the slightest personal disrespect—they were perfectly unscrupulous. The whole object of the metropolitan Members was to obtain a large amount of Impe- rial expenditure for their constituents. Against that principle he would always contend, and he would ask all those hon. Members opposite who were not connected with the metropolis to support him. His hon. Friend objected to a system of most mischievous jobbing, the cost of which it was impossible to calculate. The country had very nearly been saddled with many millions for the purification of the Thames.

hoped the House would not waste any more time over this "bagged fox." Great interests were waiting to know the decision of the House upon the matters proposed to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted that no more time would be taken up by the present discussion. The whole argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite was a mistake. It was impossible that operations connected with the Royal Parks could be discussed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the expense be thrown upon the metropolis. The expenditure for the Royal Parks stood upon a different footing, and any analogy between the constitution of the present Committee and that of a railway committee, in which the Members interested had no deciding voice, was quite erroneous. The Committee would have to consider what plan would be best adapted for the purification of the Serpentine at the smallest expenditure. Their recommendation, however, would not be binding on the House, which would look to the evidence, and then judge for itself whether the Report of the Committee was borne out. He trusted that this discussion might now close, and the House be allowed to proceed with the important business on the paper.

said, he had remarked that wherever there was any dirty water to be defended the hon. Member for West Norfolk was always foremost in that cause. The hon. Member was very l0th to part with what Shakspeare called the "ancient and the fish-like smell" of the artificial water in St. James's Park, and now that nuisance was taken from the nose of Her Majesty the hon. Member was miserable that the Serpentine was to be cleansed, and insisted that no one whose duty it was to keep the metropolis healthy should be put upon the Committee.

held that the metropolis ought to pay for its own improvements. The country at large was certainly no longer disposed to bear this expenditure.

thought it the duty of the Members for Marylebone to protect the interests which their constituents had in the purification of the Serpentine. It was highly unfair to say that the metropolitan Members ought not to be upon the Committee.