The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE 07 LORDS.—TUESDAT, Jnor 23.

lte the HousK of Logo~ yesterday the Duke of
MaaLsosouca gave notice that on the second
reading of the Tests Abolition (Oxford and Cant-
bridge)Bill he should move that it be read a second
time that day three months.
The adjourned debate on the Representation of
the People Mill was resumed by
The Earl of SuarrEsurny, who sail he looked
upon reform as inevitable, but he thought they
should have gono on by steps, and he should have
liked to have seen the franchise bestowed as a
reward for honesty and industry. Ho believed
Mr. Glcictstone's bill of last year would have
been accepted with satisfaction by :he people.
He did not think this would be. Mr.

Gladstone's bill would lava been gradual in
its effects. This bill dragged them to the 'edge of
the Tarpuian rock, and threw them over like cri-
minals. Ministers said they had oome to house-
hold suffrage because they were sure of coming to it
at last. There could be no doubt of that, but why
were they to jump out of the window when they
could walk out of the door f He held that house-
hold suffrage was no resting place whatever. The
introduction of the lodger franchise affirmed the
principle that the franchise was a right rather
than a trust. It contemplated the voter simply as
a man, and not as a man connected with his duties
as &citizen. Then, he believed there would be an
agitation to reduce the lodger qualification from 4s.
a week to 2s. 6d., and that brought them almost
to universal suffrage. He believed that a House
of Commons elected by the preponderating class
would be dangerous to the old institutions of the
country, and that it would act prejudicially to the
established church. That house might resist some
violent and unjust measure, but would soon be
told that the people were to govern, and not a set
of hereditary peers. He did not think that their
lordships would be put out of exiskuce by a vio-
lent act, but they would be made to disappear with
the elegant softness of a dissolving view. Beyond
these there were questions of social importance
which would be premed—questions as to the rela-
tions of capital and labour, and the accumulation
of property in private hands. As to the rediatribu-

tion scheme he was satisfied it must be reopened. All
a this tended to a republic. Everything in the
present day was gigantic. They had gigantic ships,
gigantic companies, and he was afraid they would
have a gigantic downfall. In the meanwhile
let them indulge their imaginations, and picture to
themselves the rising out of this wreck of British
institutions the glorious phomix of conservative
democracy.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR expressed a hope that
the amendment, which had served its purpose of
eliciting discussion, would be withdrawn, and asked
the house to consider the serious consequences of
passing it after the House of Cmimons had spent
five months in passing the measure. lie then pro-
ceeded to justify the various provisions of the bill,
beginnin4 with the borough franchise. It was
founded on the principle of rating. The lodger
franchise, it was true, broke in upon that principle ;
it was nut, however, in the original bill, but was
insisted upon by the House of Commons. Passing
to the redistribution of seats he said it was the
result of a compromise. The bill, he believed,
would be received with satisfaction by the country.
The Duke of ARGYLL said the Earl of Derby last
night gave them no reasons for this measure, but
he told them ho introduced it because he was un-
willing to he a stopgap, leaving them to infer that
he was willing to be a weathercock. He did not
believe in the gloomy antimpatioas of his noble
friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), but they should
not conceal from themselves the magnitude of the
change that was proposed. They were asked to
read a second time a bill which, if it had been pro-
posed last year, would have been received with an
universal shout of non-content. The noble earl
talked of the bill being a compromise. It was a
compromise, or rather a makeshift on the question
of the redistribution of seats, butes regardedthebo-
rough franchise, it was no compromise at all, but a
complete surrender of every principle that had
been hitherto maintained by the conservatives of
this country. The noble duke then referred to the
causes of the present position of this question. He
began by admitting that the liberal party were
much to blame. The primary cause was the weak-
ness, the timidity, and the insincerity with which
that party dealt with the Reform Bill introduced
by the government of Lord Palmerston, and it was
a mistake not to revive the question before the
d ',solution of that parliament. The present whe-
at •nt inherited all the insincerity and timidity of
toe last on the question of reform, and that spirit
broke out in the formation of a third party, by
means of which the bill of last year was defeated.
But that party had collapsed, and even its
olory—the preponderance of a elan of whit they
beard so much bud year, was heard no more.
The Duke of RICHMOND did not think that the
addition of 350,000 to the constituencies would
have the baneful effect which had been predicted.
He believed that the bill would promote the peace
and prosperity of the country.
The Marquis of CLANHICARDE defended the
Adullamites from the charges which had been
brought against them in reference to the bill of
lest year, and said he was glad when the present
government came into office, because he knew
they would be forced to settle the question.
Lord FEVER/HAM supported the bill.
Lord Hotronrow regretted for the sake of public
morality that this measure was not to be passed by
those who had always supported reform. He
reminded their lordships that they were this night
inaugurating the democratic power of England, and
the only means they had of counteracting the
effects of democracy was by the use of the influence
which their social position and intelligence gave
them.

The Earl of HARROWBY protested against the
term "enfranchisement of the working classes,"
and said the working classes in this country always
...bad been free. Inasmuch as they were giving the
vote to the poorer classes, and as the poorer classes
were the most numerous they would return the
members for the boroughs, and in that way would
in fact govern the House of Commons and the
country. Ho should vote for the amendment.
Lord CAIRNS said the merits and demerits of the
bill resolved themselves into four cardinal points—
the borough franchise, the lodger franchise, the
reduction of the county franchise, and the redis-
tribution of seats. Dealing with these points con-
secutively, he argued, with regard to the borough
franchise, that as they must extend the franchise,
and could not propose a lower sum than OF., it was
better to set aside the question of amount alto-
gether. The bill did not give household suffrage
pure and simple, because it was accompanied by
the conditions of residence, liability to rate, and
payment of rates. Then, taking the lodger fran-
chise, he said it was one that ought to commend
itself to conservatives, though it was one
that would no doubt strike different minds dif-
ferently. He did not think the line of 101. hap-
pily chosen, and suggested that it should be fixed
at a higher sum a year for London and the larger
towns. Passing to the county franchise, he ad-
mitted that there was a " hard and fast" line, but
submitted that it could not be avoided. Then with
regard to the last point—the redistribution of
seats—he said there was no plan that could be
proposed that could not be cavilled at. He ex-
pressed his dislike to the "three-cornered" constitu-
encies. According to the old custom, each borough
returned two members, and that was the
constitutional way 14 giving a representation to
minorities, and he suggested that the same object
might be gained by not allowing a voter to vote
for more than two members. There was a large
section of the conservatives who would last year
have been willing to have made a compromise fix-
ing the county franchise at 201., and the borough
franchise at 101. ; but that compromise was im-
possible. He looked upon this bill as entirely
consistent with conservative policy, by which he
meant the policy which would sustain the institu-
tions of the country.

Earl Rumsti. said he was not disposed to find
fault with the government for introducing a bill
on the subject of reform, for he had never regarded
it as a monopoly al his party. There were