chester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds, three members each, instead of two; and the London University one member. This, he repeated, was a simple plan, containing as little novelty as possible. In conclusion, he remarked that, although he had not been successful in the two measures he had proposed upon this subject, he was not discouraged, and felt sure that the measure he now offered to the House would strengthen the foundations of the Constitution. Some desultory conversation followed Lord John Russell's speech -various criticisms were nounced upon the proposed scheme, and disappointment was expressed by certain members of the Liberal party at the smallness of the concessions of electoral rights. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. pro On the same evening, Mr. Cardwell, as Secretary for Ireland, obtained leave to introduce a corresponding measure for that country. Mr. Cardwell briefly explained the leading features of his measure. It reduced, he said, the qualification for voting for counties from 12. (required by the Act of 1850) to 10l., and substituted a borough franchise of 6l. for 81., and it proposed to give to the county of Cork and the city of Dublin three members each, instead of two, supplying the additional members from the four seats in England suspended and unappropriated. He hoped, he observed, that a day might come when Parliament would think it right to give a member to the Queen's University; but, looking at the circumstances of the University, he did not think it right to make such a proposal yet. The Bill proposed likewise to remove the disqualification of Peers of Ireland to represent Irish constituencies. The Lord-Advocate asked leave to introduce a similar measure for Scotland, which appropriated two of the four suspended seats in England to the Scotch Universities, and provided a 101. occupation-franchise for counties, and a borough franchise of 6l., the basis of franchise to be the valuation rolls. It proposed to reduce the property qualification for counties from 107. to 5l., enforcing residence unless the property were of the former amount. After various expressions of opinion, leave was given to introduce these Bills. On the 19th of March, the second reading of the English Reform Bill was moved, and though the debate began languidly and at one time seemed likely to expire-the lack of interest being such as made it difficult to keep the House together-it was continued by successive adjournments from time to time, so that it was not till the 3rd of May that the question was put from the chair. Of the numerous speeches that were delivered on this occasion, the limits of our space will only permit us to notice a few of the most important, whether from the position of the speakers, or the views of the subject which they embraced. Mr. Disraeli himself opened the debate on the second reading, and at once proclaimed the ground which he and his party intended to take up in reference to the ministerial measure. The right hon. gentleman began by observing that the framers of this Bill had claimed for it the merit of simplicity; but simplicity was of an ambiguous character. The end proposed by the Bill was "To amend the Laws relating to England.] HISTORY. the Representation of the People in England and Wales," and its principles were the extension of the suffrage in counties and boroughs, and a new distribution of Parliamentary seats; but he did not see in this Bill any allusion to the primary and necessary topics of registration and faciliIts omissions ties for voting. number this were, indeed, its principal features; some of the provisions intimately connected with the franchise were entirely ignored. With reference to its first principle-the extension of the franchise in boroughs-he remarked that the late Government, in their Bill, did not look to numbers, but to the fitness of those who were to receive the suffrage; this was not, however, the principle upon which the present Government had proceeded. The existing borough constituency of England was 140,000, to which Bill would add 217,000, and this addition would consist almost entirely of one It was imhomogeneous class. portant to consider how this new constituency must act upon the old. In some boroughs the constituency would be trebled, in others doubled, and about onehalf of the boroughs would be under the influence of the new class about to be enfranchised. He wished to put before the House the probable result of these facts. Had the new class shown no inclination to combine, or were they incapable of organization? Quite the reverse. The working classes of this country had shown a remarkable talent for organization, and a power of discipline and combination inferior to none, and to these classes the Bill was about to give predominant power. He thought a measure which founded the constituency upon the prin- He Mr. Baxter believed that the extending of the franchise to the working classes would strengthen, not impair, the foundations of our institutions. Those classes were intelligent, and he did not think that the people of this country were in the habit of voting in classes. The Bill had, he admitted, defects. He objected to the fourth clause, which required the building occupied jointly with land to be of the value of 51. to give a county franchise; and the redistribution of seats was not, in his opinion, satisfactory. to the motion for the second reading. Mr. Bright said he was in one respect in the same condition as Mr. Disraeli; he did not desire to reject the second reading of the Bill, but he should not endeavour to persuade the House that it was a dangerous and fatal measure; on the contrary, though anxious for a good measure of Parliamentary reform, he was ready to make due allowance for the difficulty of dealing with this question. It was evident that the Bill met with two Mr. Rolt said, if he rightly un- kinds of objectors — one who derstood this measure, it made a thought it went too far; anolarge step towards severing the ther who wished it to go further. representation of the people from He did not oppose or advocate it the property of the country. This upon either ground. He regarded he took to be its true principle. the measure as the fulfiment of a The Bill of 1832 did this profes- pledge given by the Government. sedly, and it was now proposed to As to the redistribution of seats, do this a second time in little more he had thought it would be better than a quarter of a century. He that the Reform should be by steps, warned the House that they could and this was a Bill for reducing the not stop at this point; they must franchise in counties and boroughs; proceed to household suffrage, and it did not settle the question of disthen to universal suffrage. An franchisement, or the transfer of example of this step-by-step legis- seats; it rather unsettled it. If lation and its results would be it passed, it would not add more seem, among a people with notions than 160,000 to the borough conakin to ours, in the State of New stituency. And how many of these York, the conventions in which would be working men? Not more furnished traces of an agrarian than 100,000; and how could it law. The effect of the American then be said that they would system upon the Executive was, swamp the other classes? The that opinion was coloured and ac- objection that the measure did not tion dictated by the masses, while go far enough was more difficult the Legislature was represented by to answer, and was a rational obtheir own writers to be demoralized. jection. He thought this parsiThese were the results of reform- mony on the part of the House ing their Constitution by men of was a mistake; that the character our own race, and he thought we of the lower classses would justify should take some lessons from a more liberal view of the matter. them. If this measure did, as But if 300,000 or 400,000 were he believed it did, weaken and admitted to the franchise, he could disturb the connection between not refuse the measure, because in property and the representation, his opinion these numbers ought he should give an emphatic "No" to be doubled. He thought the England.] HISTORY. Bill failed in certain points. He objected to the ratepaying clauses, to the 4th clause, and to other details of the Bill. With regard to the Ballot, that question would be brought under consideration upou a future occasion, and he was convinced that, under this Bill, there would be a still greater necessity for that measure. Upon the whole, he urged upon the other side that, under the circumstances of the country, it was their duty as well as their interest to accept the Bill. Mr. Stansfeld thought, practically speaking, it might fairly be said that, as far as regarded the extension of the franchise, the Bill fulfilled the pledges of the Government, and answered the expectations, if it did not satisfy the desires, of the country; and, in respect to disfranchisement, the Government had gone as far as the House of Commons would at the present time be disposed to go. Upon these practical grounds he justified his cordial support of the Bill. He attached no weight to the objection that it would give a preponderance to the power of the working classes, and disputed the allegation that there was a want of interest upon this question; he believed, he said, that the country was alive to the question, and that the measure would in the end disarm prejudice and dispel false alarm. Sir J. Pakington said his opinion of this Bill was that it was a miserable Bill, and he could account for the Government having brought forward a measure of such a meagre character only by supposug that it was the compromise of a divided Cabinet and of a divided attention between foreign and domestic affairs. He had hoped, he said, that Lord J. Russell would Sir G. Grey imputed to the opponents of the Bill an inconsis tency in denouncing it as miserable and meagre, but yet refraining from testing the opinion of the House by resisting the second reading. The objection of Sir J. Pakington that the Bill proposed to overwhelm the property of the country by the force of numbers was, he observed, a mere assumption on his part; he had made no attempt to demonstrate the position; and the proposal to refer the question of the revision of the representation to a committee of the Privy Council was perfectly Utopian. He wondered that this bright idea had not struck Sir John when the Bill of the late Government was in preparation. The objections to lowering the borough franchise so as to admit the working classes was, he contended, inconsistent with declarations made by the late Government; and he did not believe, considering the character of those classes, that their admission to the franchise would, as Sir J. Pakington alleged, overpower the property of the country. The principle of the reduction of the borough franchise, and, practically, the admission of the working classes to the franchise, had been, in fact, assented to by the House, since issue was taken upon that question, when the Resolution moved by Lord J. Russell last year was submitted to the House. Sir George discussed the objections urged to the other parts of the Bill, relating to the country franchise and the re-distribution of seats, and, in conclusion, observed that there never was a period when the country being tranquil and prosperous-a measure of this nature was more likely to obtain a calm consideration. Mr. Adderley severely com mented on the exaggerations and misstatements employed by Mr. Bright in his agitation of the question. He thought the effect of this Bill would be to give power to a discontented class with nothing to lose, who would become the mere tools of demagogues. Mr. Massey observed that the first question was, what were the practical defects of the great Reform Act? There were two-one, that the franchise did not include that part of the population entitled by education, property, and intelligence, to exercise it; and the other was the disproportion of seats to places entitled to be represented. He was bound to ask himself, he said, what was the exigency that called upon the House inexorably to settle the question during this session. It was one which ought not to be opened without adequate necessity, but, if opened, it should be closed as soon as possible; and he was prepared to agree to some measure that would close it. The necessity was not very urgent, but if the House did embark in a question of this character, it was bound to present to the country such a scheme of reform as would be creditable to itself and becoming the statesman from whom it emanated. As regarded enfranchisement, the present measure was ample and generous; it descended below the point fixed by the Act of 1832, doubling the number of electors; and, from what he knew of the working classes, he was not afraid of the extension of the franchise to them. But would the Bill, as a whole, be likely to settle the question? In that part which related to the re-distribution of seats it was miserable and paltry; it created greater anomalies than it cured. If Lord John Russell, after |
