The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Tu Esn %V, MAY 28.

IN the House of LORDS yesterday the National
Debt Bill and the Habeas Corpus Sthipeniion (Ire-
land) Act Continuance Bill were reapecti‘ely read
a third time and passed.
In committee on the increase of the Episcopate
Dill,

Earl GREY proposed a clause authorising the ap-
pointment of assistant bishops to sud any bishop
who may stand in need of rich assistance, the
assistant bishops to be presented to thy• crown from
the deans, archdeacons, canons, and r .ral deans of
the diocese.

The clause was agreed to. and several other
clauses having been added, the bill passed through
committee.

Thu. L,ltt, Cue.minima moved the second read-
!mg of the Statute Law Revision Rill, the object of
which he stated was merely to continue the work
of revising the statute law.
The bill was read a second time.

The Public Libraries (Scotland) Act Amendment
Bill was also read a second time, and several other
bills having been advanced a stag:: the house
adjourned at 5 minutes put 7 ''cluck.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Trt•sr, MAY 28.
The Hou4F. of Commorn, met yesterday at two
o'clock, and almost immediately went into own-
suttee on the Representation of the People 13111,
resuming the discussion on the nt .1' clause 35,
which was brought up by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in substitution of the firmer clause,
and which, with some amendments, u;:s agreed to.
Mr. P. *mom moved to add a proviso that no
person, whether owner or occupier of a dwelling-
house in a borough, the rateable v.ilue of which
shall be leas than 4/., shall be heredu r rated to the
relief of the poor in respect of such 4.,elling-house.
This he urged principally on acoeunt of the diffi-
culty of collecting rates from the class of persons
who occupied such houses.
lit. H I opposed the pr9vis.) because it
would have the effect of limiting tin :ranch**.
Lord C ItANHOILTII remarked that the excusal
from rates will henceforth be a great political act.
and will determine whether this or that candidate
shall be returned. And this they were going t..)
leave to the local authorities. On these grounds
he hoped the house would not reject this motion.
Mr. Hs,' tar hoped the house le odd reject the
*lotion. A question of this vast importance
ought not to be mixed up with the franchise ques-
tion ; and his second objection was, that the house
had determined to reject the hard :aid fast line of
the franchise.

Mr. Gas.mar addressed the ho-...-se in support of
an amendment he had given notice of, that the
huidlord pay one-half the rates of Louses under 4/.
Mr. HUWJaRD supported the motion, because it
would exclude the poorest and most ignorant of the
population from the franchise.
Mr. BRIMIT said in 1858 and 1859 be addressed
a great number of large meetings on this subject,
and he then proposed a reform bill, and it was au
interesting fact that the provisions of that bill so
far as regarded the borough franchise were almost
identical with those of the present bill ; but in his
bill he disfranchised those who were excused
their rates on the ground of poverty. The proposal
now before the house might have been accepted
some months ago, but they were now in a different
position, and they could not go back. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had proposed the extremest
measure of enfranchisement in boroughs that he
bad ever proposed in public or private, and
it would be ungrateful and unhandsome in him if
be were to say anything against it, or withdraw his
cordial support from the bill, which was now giving
aatisfactiou to the country. He did not want to
taunt hon. gentlemen opposite with the change they
bad undergone : it was one of the marvels of our
time, but it was one which would be of advantage
to them and the country. But if they had con-
ceded the bill of last year they would have settled
the question for twenty years, and when they had
been called upon to take the next step they might
have found a population well qualified by educa-
tion to receive the franchise.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked in
what respect he and the other members of the
government had c their opinions since last
year—a question viirilactedelicited roan of laughter.
The government, he said, had not changed their
opinions, but they opposed the bill of last year,
which they considered imperfect in its conception
and crude in its details ; and they bad brought for-
ward a measure which was distinguished by cha-
racteristics which the former bill did not possess.
He trusted that the committee would not adopt
this motion, for it wculd disturb everything that
they had settled as regarded the borough franchise.
Mr. CLAD/MONS regretted that the question of
consistency or inconsistency of the government
had been mooted, but he could not confirm by
silence what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
said. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
those rho supported him were in favour of house-
hold suffrage last year, why did they let the
speeches of Mr. Lowe fall dead on the house 1
And if they opposed the bill of last rear, not
because it went too far, but because it aid not go
far enough, why did they not say sot In 1865 the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was in favour
of a lateral and not a downward extension of tlle
franchise, and that although he and the other mem-
ben of Lord Derby's government in 1859 to some
extent agreed to an extension of the 101. franchise,
his present opinion was opposed to anything of the
kind. The Secretary for India had stated
that the government would never consent
to introduce a bill giving household suf-
frage. But this was a bill that satisfied
the greatest desires of those who had asked for
household suffrage. With regard to the motion
immediately before the house, lie agreed with Mr.
Bright that there was no sufficient cause for their
joining issue with the government on is at this
stage of the question.
Mr. P. Senors then withdrew the motion, and
clause 4 was ordered to stand part of the bill.

On clause t, which gave educational franchises
in counties and boroughs,
Mr. BOUVERIE said he did not think that a num-
ber of Masten of Arts should be allowed to go
about the country holding examinations, about the
conditions of which the house knew nothing, and
granting certificates which were to confer a vote
for life.

Mr. B. Hors. nlso strongly opposed the clause.
They had already got beyond household suffrage,
and if they agreed to this clause they would have
gone nine-tenths of the way towards manhood suf-
frage. Besides, nothing could bring the universi-
ties so low as using them as a catapaw for so pm-
posterous an extension of the suffrage.
Mr. ACLAND expressed his astonishment that
government should have proposed such a suffrage.
Besides, as he pointed out, there was no such
thing known as a " senior middle-class examina-
tion by any university, but there was a local exa-
mination.
Mr. Fawcerr supported the clause.

Sir R. PALMER. moved to expunge the clause.
First, he said the clause wee not necessary as an
extension of the swags, for moat of the persons
who would be affected by it would be admitted
either under the lodger or household suffrage.
Besides, if they once admitted an educational fran-
chise, where were they to stop I
Mr. Ginniosin also opposed the clause.
Mr. H INLET said, the more be heard of the
clause, the more did it appear to him that the dis-
advantages would exceed an
_y possib!e advantages.
The Caascauoit of the Exclitisura said, when
this clause was introduced the lodger franchise
bad not been agreed to. He seceded to the
motion that the clause should be expunged.
After a few words from Mr. Wvxn,whoregretted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given
way, the clause was expunged.
Sir R. PALMER then moved that claise 6, which
conferred tho franchise on persons having 50/. in
the savings banks or in the public funds,
or who paid 20e. a year in assessed tax
and income tax, be also expunged. The same
general reasons, he said, applied as tothe last clause. I