liamentary Reform, and, to some extent, the merits of the Ministerial Bill, became the topic of discussion in the Upper House, in consequence of a motion brought forward by Earl Grey on the 19th of August. The discussion to which this proposition gave rise deserves some notice.

The motion of Lord Grey was, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what would be the probable increase in the number of electors in the counties and boroughs of England and Wales from a reduction of the franchise, and whether any or what change is likely to be made in the character of the constituencies by such increase also to inquire what difference there is between large and small constituencies in respect of the proportion of the registered electors who usually vote in contested elections, and into the causes of any such difference which may be found to exist; likewise into the means by which elections in very large constituencies are practically determined, and into the expense incurred in conducting them." He based his motion, he said, upon the probability of the Reform Bill now be fore the House of Commons becoming law, and the necessity of having correct data for arriving at just conclusions on a subject of such enormous importance. The returns of the number whom the new Bill proposed to admit to the franchise, and upon which the Government based its calculations, were most inadequate; and, in stead of 200,000 being added to the constituencies, as supposed by the Government, it was most probable that at least double that number would be the amount added. It was also necessary not

only to know the number of those to whom the franchise was to be given, but also somewhat of their position in life, their education, and their moral character. There was, again, no means of arriving at an approximation as to those who would be admitted by the proposed alteration to the county franchise. It was, however, not only the number and character of those admitted to the franchise which should be considered, but the way in which such votes would be distributed. He then proceeded to advert to the great number of voters who did not record their votes, and to the enormous expenses incurred at elections, owing to the great size of the constituencies, which necessitated a large amount of corruption, by throwing the representation into a knot of self-appointed committees and into the hands of a small band of intriguers. Before any more of these large constituencies were constituted, he thought it necessary that they should know more of the matter, and this knowledge could only be obtained by the appointment of a Select Committee. Adverting to the system in the United States, where the result of every man having a vote was so notorious, he wished to know what effect an extension of the franchise in this country would have upon the return of members of Parliament. The mere possession of a vote irrespective of the objects for which that vote was given was not for a moment to be considered. As far as there were at present means for forming an opinion, he thought that an extension of the franchise was neither necessary nor expedient. If there were any truth in the assertion that the poorer classes were excluded from

political rights, he should not hold such an opinion, but in the present state of the law there was no industrious man in a borough who might not expect to hold a 101. house. There was also an indirect influence which a man of character who had no vote could exert upon those who had, who were always ready to support the interests of the unrepresented. It was impossible to give the poorer classes a larger share of the franchise without giving them a complete predominance. The Committee he asked for would not have to form plans for a Reform Bill, but to assist their lordships in obtaining information which would enable them properly to discuss the Reform Bill of the Government when it came before them. The principles on which they ought to proceed to accomplish a safe and effectual improvement had not yet been discovered, and he was sure that Parliament could not properly deal with this momentous question before some such inquiry had been made. The subject ought to receive a dispassionate discussion. He should deeply regret to see passed, for the mere sake of concession, such a measure as would unsettle all and settle nothing. Unless the question ceased to be the battlefield of party, and the leaders of party had sufficient patriotism to agree either to leave the representation as it was—and after all there was but little practical objection to its working or else to endeavour to concur in devising and carrying some measure framed in accordance with the dictates of political wisdom and experience, and not with the mere view of patching up for a time a troublesome and difficult question-unless this was

more

done, there was, in his opinion, danger of an overthrow of the balance of the Constitution, and the establishment of an unchecked democracy. The institutions of the United States ought to be a warning beacon to us. The extraordinary abuses which had sprung up under the representative system of the United States-corruption, violence, the advantage of the many sacrificed to the interests of the few, the exclusion of the educated and wealthy from every department of official life, an arrogance in dealing with foreign nations, a false system of financewere not calculated to invite that imitation of it which its English admirers advocated. Passing to the direct question before the House, he concluded by observing that he was not one of those who thought the Act of 1832 necessarily final, and it was in order to know what numbers and what classes would be admitted that he moved for a Select Committee.

The Duke of Argyll was perfectly willing that the returns should be referred to a Select Committee, on the distinct understanding that it was not to be a means for completely shelving the measure before the nation. He defended the returns from the inaccuracies imputed to them by individual members, and stated that the Government had taken particular care to have the returns verified in those boroughs in which they were alleged to have been incorrect, and that the verification had proved the accuracy of the returns and the untruth of the allegations against them. He could not allow the analogy implied by Lord Grey between the institutions of the United States and the changes proposed by the new Bill

The new

to pass uncontradicted. Bill neither adopted the Ballot nor Universal Suffrage. Confessing his surprise at the sudden change in the opinions of Lord Grey, who in 1852 had supported Lord John Russell's measure, which reduced the borough franchise to within 20s. of the amount proposed by the present Bill, he could only account for it on the supposition that the speculations of persons in isolated positions were very different from those of the same persons when shackled by the responsibility of an official appointment. He then considered the Reform Bill of Mr. Disraeli, which, in his opinion, had never met with adequate justice, but the fault of which was that it made no alteration in the borough franchise, and the premature fate of which was due not so much to its opponents as to its parents. If, as was asserted by the Conservative party, the tendencies of the lower classes were conservative, why had the Conservatives so great a horror of an extension of the franchise? He proceeded to contend that the 61. householder of the new Reform Bill would be as well calculated to exercise the franchise as the small shopkeeper, who was less independent than the working man. He agreed with Lord Grey in hoping that this question would be settled by the present Bill, as he saw no prospect of finding a better opportunity for its discussion than the present.

Lord Derby repelled the attack made by the Duke of Argyll upon Lord Grey's consistency, and proceeded to state the course taken by his own Government in the matter of Parliamentary Reform, and the reasons by which he was induced to take that course. He would

not, he said, remind the House of the history of that Bill, but he asserted that in considering the admission of the working classes to the franchise, his colleagues and himself did not think fit to reduce the 101. borough franchise in order to admit that flood of the working classes which would have inundated the rest of the electors, but that they had equalized the county and borough franchise as the best means of overcoming further agitation. That measure did not meet with the approbation of the House of Commons, and had not been met by any counter proposition, but by an abstract Resolution framed with peculiar ingenuity. He remarked upon the apathy which had been exhibited in the discussion of the present Bill in the House of Commons, and regretted that no information had been afforded on the number of persons belonging to the working classes excluded under the existing law in boroughs from the exercise of the franchise, or the numbers which the proposed extension would admit. The Bill of the late Government would have admitted the best-qualified, the most-intelligent, and the most-enterprising and least-migratory portions of the working classes, together with a large class of educated persons who did not live in 107. houses, but who were well fitted to exercise the franchise for the benefit of the country. The principle of the present Bill was that of numbers-a principle to which he strongly objected. The data upon which those numbers were calculated were very questionable, and he, therefore, thought the proposed Committee would be highly beneficial, although he could not concur in the pledge which the Duke of Argyll wished to extract

from the House-that they would proceed with the Bill whatever should be the decision of the Committee. He should regret if the House should reject a measure sent up by the House of Commons, or even make such amendments in it as might endanger it elsewhere; yet if the Bill came up in its present form he should feel it his duty to oppose it as the most unsatisfactory, unstatesmanlike, and inconclusive measure which had ever been submitted to Parliament. He then proceeded to consider the number of those who would be admitted by the extension of the borough franchise, and showed that the result would be to throw the taxation of the country into the hands of those who believed that the upper classes were keeping up a large national expenditure for their own benefit, and would be giving the democratic element a vast preponderance in the constitution. He hoped the measure of the Government would not be pressed upon the country before the Committee had sat and finished its labours. In conclusion, he warned the House against the consequences of the present Bill, which would gradually prepare the way to lower and lower qualifications, ending in universal suffrage, would be dangerous to the balance of the constitution, and might ultimately sweep away their Lordships' House and the monarchy of the kingdom.

Lord Granville, after vindicating the Duke of Argyll from the attacks of Lord Derby, said that the Government would go into the Committee for the purpose of giving those who disbelieved in the accuracy of the returns the opportunity of discovering that the Government had not based its calcu

lations on insufficient data. He considered that the present time was the most opportune for allowing this Bill to pass, and pointed out that the language used by Lord Derby would give support to the assertions made out of doors by Mr. Bright that the Bill would not pass through the House of Lords for two or three sessions. He did not agree with Mr. Bright's assertion, because he knew it was the wish of their lordships to do all in their power to give stability to the institutions of the country.

Lord Grey explained at some length to the House the reasons by which he had been induced to assent to Lord John Russell's Bill of 1852, and freely acknowledged at the same time that it was a mistake on his part to do so. He then contrasted the circumstances of the present time and those of 1882, and contended that they were entirely different; in the one case there was great public excitement, while at the present moment there was nothing in the public feeling to urge forward the measure before the House with undue haste.

The motion was then agreed to, and a Committee was appointed.

The Ministers had appointed the 4th of June for going into Committee on the Reform Bill in the House of Commons, a date which afforded little prospect of getting so much-contested a measure through its several stages in that House and afterwards allowing time for its passage through the House of Lords. Notice had been given of many amendments to be proposed at this stage, and it was evident that the progress of the Bill must be very slow and much impeded by opposition and delay. Several honourable mem

bers had announced their inteution of moving instructions to the Committee on the Bill to make provision for matters relating to the representation which the Bill did not include,-such as the prevention of bribery and corruption, increased facilities for polling, &c.; but these were withdrawn upon an intimation from the Speaker that they could not be moved consistently with the forms and orders of the House. In moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

Lord John Russell stated the course which the Government proposed to take with respect to the three Reform Bills. In their opinion, the English Bill should go into Committee and its provisions be assented to by Parliament before the other Bills were considered, and it was not to be expected that the Scotch and Irish Bills, under those circumstances, could be proceeded with this session. With regard to the English Bill, two questions arose, one as to the substance of the measure, and the other as to the time when it was proposed to proceed with it. In respect to the first question, the Government had proposed a franchise for the boroughs which they did not think lower than it was proper to carry it; but this was a question of degree, and he was therefore justified in asking the House to go into Committee, when any propositions for amending the Bill could be fairly considered. If the reduction of the franchise were objected to, the House should not have assented to the second reading. With respect to the question of time, it was to be proposed to wait the results of the Census, but this would postpone a Reform Bill for three years, which was equivalent to putting it

.

off indefinitely upon a very hollow pretence. Then it was said that this was the 4th of June, and it was too late to proceed with the Bill, considering that the Estimates had not passed the House. Looking at the importance of this Bill, however, this, he thought, was no reason for not proceeding with it, and, if the Government alleged this reason, it would be attributed to a desire to get rid of the Bill without the manliness to avow it. No time was fixed for the prorogation of Parliament, and, if important business was before them, there was no reason why their sittings should not be prolonged.

Mr. Disraeli vindicated the fairness and consistency of his party in relation to the measure, observing that the policy which Lord John had recommended that night was in most strange and startling contrast to that which he had recommended from the Opposition benches, and to the tone and temper with which the Bill had been introduced. He pointed out the difficulties and embarrassments which would attend the course the Government proposed to adopt. If the English Bill only was to be proceeded with, was there to be a partial dissolution of Parliament, or must that House meet as a condemned House of Commons, the English members not competent to their duties? Meanwhile that was going on which should excite the anxiety and engage the deep attention of the country; and was that a period when the House should be left in the state which Lord J. Russell contemplated? In his opinion, it was most impolitic at this moment to attempt such a settlement of this question as that undertaken by