The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLI A M ENT.

HOUSE OF LORD.--M1).4 %, 'r'►: a.

lo the Hut se of Logos yesterday, several bills
were advanced a stage.
On t!te rep.rt of uniendracsits es. the %weenie of
the Episcopate Bill,
Lord Lvrretrom said the second clause, which
Required that 101,01101. idn.u.: I be raised before any
wee could he established, 'amid be a formidable
obstacle to the satisfactory working of the measure,
sad he moved that the chins.• be 4J:sled-L.:ed.
On a division the amendment ors Ae4ativcd by
48 to 36.

The Bishop of OXFOZD moved to amend the 12th
clause by giving power to the ecclesiastical com-
adesioners to subscribe to the fund for the erection
ci a new see as soon as one- half of the total sum
weeired was raised.

he amendment was carried by 41 to ::1.
The Ear! of ELLENBOROMP urged ths: the only
duct of the bill, if passed in its present shape,
would be to place under the contra of every
bishop one or more movulble d mni:es. He
alloyed the omission of the 13th clause.

On a division, the inotioirwascarnT'el'i by 23 t.)
20, and the clause was conic lucntly c%punged.
The report was then agreed to, and the house
adjourned at a quarter to ei4ht o'clock.

MOUSE OF COMMONS. It! !es op Y. Jest 3.
La the Ho.: of of CoomiN:, Lord 147,N7.CY stated,
In reply to a question from Mr. A r n.ovo, that the
negotiations with the Portuguese govermnent for
*treaty of commerce, which had been broken off,
have been renewed, and that the Portuguese go-
vernment have made certain oflers which are now
wader the consideration of the Board of Trade.
Be further stated, in reply to Mr. LAYARD, that
'representations had been made to him, which he
feared were too well founded, of gross outrages
baying been committed on the Jews m the Danu-
bian Principalities' and he had telegraphed to the
consul-general to ask the government .1 the Prin-
cipalities to take measures for their protection.
The CHANOELLOK of the EN., fIE(.I.:ER, in reply to
Mr. MONCRISIVF, stated that though the Scotch'
Beform Bill stood on the orders for Thursday he'
intended to adhere to the detertainati,fla lie had
already expressed not to proceed with the Scotch
bill till the English bill was ont of coinmittee.
The house having gone into com;:iittee on the
Be presentation of the People Bill,
Mr. Serjeant Gametes rose, and created consi-
derable merriment by saying that the house had
carried by so large a majority on Friday his pt,-
position (moved -by Mr. Laing) for taking away
ono member from every botough now returning
two which had a population of less than ten thou-
sand, that he would now move the other part of that
proposition, which ought to have been put first,
and that was to disfranchise every borough with a
population of less than live tho,sand persona.
There were ten of those howtighs, returning in the
aftwregate 111 members, though they had collec-
tively a population of only 39,704 persons, with a
eonstitnency of 2,884. The whole of these boroughs
would have beou disfranchised Ly Lord Russell's
bill of 1854, and he thought they ought to be dis-
franchised now.

Mr. Goi.D.:t.o said a large portion of Mr. Ser-
jeant (melee's speech went to show that it was
desirable that the country should be divided into
electoral districts. He did not maintain that small
boroughs should retain as much renresentation as
they now had, but he did thin;( that the house
tught not to agree to this sweeping proposition.
Mr. 134:11H611111R moved an amendment which
would have the effect of sparing the r*,-.13 boroughs
sow returning two members from which one mem-
ber was taken on Friday.
Sir L. PALK opposed the amendment. With
regard to Arundel, one of the boroughs it was
proposed to disfranchise, it had this recommenda-
tion, that it was the only English borough
rart that
re turned a Roman catholic ; and with to the
other boroughs, there was scarcely one that had
nut been represented by men of eminence in that
house.

Mr. Csnow ea.:. cordially supported the motion.
If they wanted to have an agitation for electoral
districts they had better leave on the statute-book
the boroughs which it was proposed by this mo-
tion to disfranchise. He saw no reason why the
house should adopt Mr. Schreiber's amendment.
The Act of 11132 disfranchised boroughs with a
population of less than 2,000, and took away one
member from every borough returning two which
had • population of 4,000. The government by
this measure proposed to take away one member
from every borough containing a population less
than 7,000, but the house on Friday by a very large
majority fixed the limit at 10.000. He thought,
therefore, that having raised the line for two mem-
bers, they ought by analogy to raise it for one
member. When he saw that these ten boroughs
which did not contain, counting man, woman, and
child, 40,000 persons, returned 15 members, and
that Liverpool, which returned only two members,
contained 65,000 householders. he put it to the
house whether it was consistent with reason that
such a state of things should continue.
Mr. J. Hsnov said his borough (Dartmouth) now
contained a population of about 4,1100, and he
created some amusement by claiming to add to it
the crew of the training ship Britannia, by which
he said he would be spared.
Mr. NEI/MLR-GRENVILLE submitted that these
boroughs ought not to be disfranchised until the
report of the boundary commissioners had been
received, and he put in a special plea for the city of
Wells.

Captain HAYTER quite agreed that 6,000 was not
the proper limit for a new borough, but it was
different when they came to deal with an old
borough.
Mr. Smomarrr observed that they were getting
into an awful mess about this reform bill. He
should vote for the amendment, in the hope that
the government would withdraw theirscheme, and
bring in another by which the number of members
would be diminished, for in his opinion there
were too many.
Ma. LAING expressed his disappointment that,
after the vote of Friday, the government did not
state what course they proposed to acb•pt- In
order to give the counties the additional repre-
sentation, they ought to have twelve or fifteen
mats more than the forty-five obtained by his
motion, and they could be obtained only by adopt-
ing this motion, or by grouping. Ho denied that
he haul stolen Mr. Serjeant Gaselee's proposition,
and said his was different from that of the learned
serjeant's.

The CHANVELLOR of the Ex.-iirucEn congra-
tulated the house that this question was discussed
without party feeling, and he claimed for the
government some share of the credit of having
brought about such a state of things. Their bill
involved great sacrifices on the part of their poli-
ticsl friends, and, if it had been necessary, they
would not have scrupled to appeal to both
aides of the house to make sacrifices. The
government had proposed no plan in conse-
quence of the vote on Friday, because
they did not arrive at the full decision of the
house, this motion not being yet decided upon,
and they did not think it well to bring forward a
plan which was not matured in its details. He
assured Mr. Laing, who had constituted himself
the champion of the county representation, that
he had not lost sight of that subject. He had
always said that the counties had not their fair
share of representation, but that this inequality was
in &great measure met by these small boroughs.
There were 84 members of boroughs who might be
fairly described as representing the landed interest.
If this amendment were adopted they would change
all this, and therefore if the house agreed to it they
must give inure members to counties. The princi-
ple of the bill was that no borough should be
totally disfranchised, and that he contended was
the sound principle. He had no doubt the com-
mittee would consider the question with im-
partiality, and that they might agree to a distribu-
tion of seats that would be satisfactory.
Mr. Gcanwrorra pointed out that the motion did
not absolutely disfranchise the boroughs, as it
would still be open to the committee to consider