England. HISTORY. doubling the constituency, had accompanied it by a proportionate measure of disfranchisement, he would have been consistent, or, if he had adhered to his former plan, and abstained in this Bill from the re-distribution of seats he (Mr. Massey) should have said it was Mr. Massey entered prudent. upon a minute criticism of the Bill and its alleged defects upon this head, with suggestions for its improvement, advising Lord J. Russell, in conclusion, to submit his Bill to a revision. Mr. T. Crossley regretted to hear the distrust which had been expressed of the working classes. From long habits of intercourse with them he believed they were actuated by as much uprightness, fair dealing, and honourable sentiment, as any class. Mr. Baines expressed opinions to the same effect, and opposed the notion that it was dangerous to entrust them with power. He supported the Bill. Mr. K. Seymer, after replying Mr. Whiteside said he had ever for the production of this Mr. James, after replying to the arguments employed by Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Disraeli, and Sir J. Pakington, proceeded to point out what he considered to be the defects of the Bill-namely, its non-disfranchisement, its non-enfranchisement, and its not varying the constituency by giving a lodger franchise; its hampering the fran chise by exacting the payment of rates, and its containing no system of revised registration. He argued that the Government had not shown that they had anything like an accurate view of the extent to which the franchise would be extended under the Bill, and he gave details to prove the fallacy of the returns upon which they had based their calculations upon this point, which omitted compound occupiers. He was, he said an advocate for a large extension of the franchise; but the House and the country should know the probable amount of the addition to the constituency. With the question of non-disfranchisement he regretted that the Government had not had the courage to deal as the bolder measure of 1854, which adopted the proper principle, had dealt with this question, and he adduced examples of the extraordinary and unintelligible principle of disfranchisement upon which the present Bill proceeded. By shackling the franchise with the payment of rates, half its benefit would, he said, be destroyed. Mr. Hardy observed that no party in the House really approved of the Bill. The Conservatives regarded it with apprehension, and Mr. Bright and his party supported it, only as a stepping-stone to further extensions of the franchise. He (Mr. Hardy) objected to increasing the number of the representatives of large towns, and thought that the absence of any scheme for improving the registration was a great defect. He concluded by vindicating the aristocracy against the severe remarks which Mr. Bright had made upon them. Lord R. Montagu warmly op posed the Bill as tending to give undue weight to numbers in comparison with property and intelli gence. Mr. H. Berkeley protested against this Bill being regarded as a measure of finality. He objected to it as extending the franchise to a class less calculated to resist intimidation or corruption than the present class of voters, without affording them the protection of the Ballot, and that it did not deal with nomination boroughs. There was no feeling in the country in favour of the Bill. Sir G. Lewis observed that when the Government undertook to frame a Reform Bill they employed the intervention of the Poor Law Board to obtain correct data; and the returns laid upon the table contained correct and complete information so far as the rate-books, the only basis upon which the returns could be founded, furnished such information. Mr. James had stated that the Government had made important errors; but he (Sir George) maintained confidently that the returns were substantially correct, and that the Government had not made any serious error in the inferences they had drawn from them. He pointed out sources of error in Mr. James's argument on this point, which he, in turn, accused of fallacy; and he then proceeded to state the grounds upon which he supported the Bill. The object of the Reform Act of 1832, he remarked, was to remedy evils resulting from the representation of decayed and almost uninhabited towns, and the non-representation of populous counties and large manufacturing towns; and the effect of the measure and subsequent experience had made him think that the time had come England.] HISTORY. when it was desirable that some further progress should be made in the same direction. The defects of that Act were admitted, and the present moment was favourable for the introduction of a measure, framed in the same spirit, which was a precautionary one, to guard against evils, slight at present, but which were in creasing; and the Government were satisfied that it was a safe and moderate measure. It was objected that the Bill contained no revised system of registration; but the Government had studiously avoided the introduction of subordinate matters into the Bill, and this subject might be more conveniently dealt with in a separate Bill. The objection that it omitted the lodger franchise could be discussed in the Committee; and with regard to the complaint that the Bill was deficient in disfranchisement, he argued that circumstances had altered since the year 1831, that the nomination boroughs before the Reform Act stood upon a different footing from that on which the boroughs with small constituencies now stand; and therefore the Government had determined not to propose disfranchisement upon a large scale, but to follow the principle adopted in the Bill of the late Governmentthat of population, which they thought was, upon the whole, a fair one, and preferable to that of the number of electors. He explained the reasons which had influenced the Government in proposing the transfer of seats, observing that it was a fair subject for consideration, and if the House deemed the reasons insuflicient, their decision could be altered in the Committee. He impressed upon the House, in conclusion, that there could be no sound sys- Lord R. Cecil, in replying to Mr. Milnes believed that the exclusion of large classes of the community from the franchise would produce much discontent. He should wish to give the suffrage to members of the scientific bodies, the Inns of Courts and other classes of educated and influential persons. He did not think the present Bill would make much change in the character of the members returned to that House, and believing that it would develope the political education of the people, he should give it his support. Mr. Peacock argued strongly against the extinction of the small constituencies, a measure which would ultimately lead to electoral districts. He objected, also, to the uniformity of franchise proposed by the Bill. Mr. Newdegate contended that the element of numbers being so enormously increased in the constituency, there should be an increase in the county representation, as proposed in 1854, in order to offer a resistance to what he considered a confiscation of real property by taxation. Sir E. B. Lytton delivered and eloquent oration against the Bill, dwelling upon the effects which a low franchise would exert on the quality of the constituency, and upon the power it would give to manual labour to control capital; and he proceeded to show that the numbers which the Bill would admit to the franchise would be much larger than its framers anticipated; but, be the numbers large or small, they would be sufficient, he said, to overbear the interests of the existing constituency, and it would not be a fair representation of the community upon the theory of numbers. No security was taken for the fitness of the class to be admitted; it was not required that those who were to have the lion's share in political power should have a proportionate stake in the country and a regard for order, the foundation of property. This Bill was designed to amend the representation; but would it improve it in respect to property, station, and knowledge? It had been argued by Sir G. Lewis that the time had come for greater progress in the same direction as the great Reform Act; but this Bill went back in the very direction from which that Act departed; it took a long stride towards the old scot and lot voters, giving to the working classes a preponderating influence over property and knowledge. He would confer a fair share of the representation upon the working class, but he would have some security for intelligence and property. If this Bill were passed, a settlement of the question would be as far off as ever; it would settle nothing, and they were asked to pass it when the House of Lords were making inquiries into an important point which the House of Commons was expected to take for granted. Mr. Marsh said at once that he would not support the Bill in its present shape; his only doubt was whether something might not be made of it in the Committee, if the borough franchise were altered to 8l. instead of 6l. He urged the danger of lowering the franchise too much. He did not under-rate the good qualities of the working classes; but he had had some experience of a democracy in Australia, where every lover of freedom must lament the apathy of men of any standing, which left the representation to political adventurers. He referred to particular instances in the colony of the control exercised by the working classes and trades' unions. Sir J. Fergusson believed that the Bill, in extending the franchise more widely, would open a new door to corruption. It would not satisfy political reformers nor remove existing anomalies. The measure would exclude officers of the army and navy, schoolmasters, England.] HISTORY. articled clerks, and lodgers paying higher rents than 67., while it included a class peculiarly liable to pressure and influence. Mr. Denman cordially support- Sir J. Walsh noticed the gene- measures The re-distribution of seats, the Lord J. Russell, in reply to Sir |
