The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-14 00:00:00

- EIPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Torirsoay, Jrvr. la.
IN the se. of Commons yesterday Mr. W. E.
Foe-ro.r. Ned it had been understood that the vote
for the volunteers was not to be taken till the in-
structions to the volunteers (as to.their liability to
be cal!, d out to quell riots or iusurrection), had
been laid on the table, and on that understanding
he and other members left London ; but he was sur-
prised t 0:1 Saturday that the vote wits taken
on Friday es ening. Ili asked when the instrne
tons would be laid on the table, and whether the
wise, on the vote would be is•atiimied till the M-
etros:El.', wire before the house, in order that a
diseite.iel might be taken on it.
Si. •1. P s maws statist, in reply, at a subse-
quent !s-riot of the evening, that he was not aware
of t!.e tri lendanding referred to, or he would not
have taken the vote ; that he had a few minutes
previ-nsly laid the instructions on the table ; and
that, iu otter to milord an typor.unity for a discus-
sion •.,;siti it, the rely irt on the vote would nut is
taken t II a future day.
Tl,,- t "use then went into committee on the Re-
present.' t ion of the People Itill, and
The I'iIANeELLOR of the Exenr.QUER stated the
prii;eie. vas which the government had to make in
censer: .t.i.xt of the vote which the committee (WIWI
Laing 'a resolution BY that resolution
the y away ono member from every borough I
cow t. i:rning two which has a population not!
to 11000 ; and 15 members were
ther•
,by ~dded to the 20 originally contemplated
for r,-itopropriation ; and as they had to deal with
45 scat- Limy had thought it better to consider the,
whole question de now. They ',reposed that the'
rehire ;et ation of the metropolis should be increased
by members—two of the additional members
to lie given to the Tower Ilantlets, which would be
divid.sl into two boroughs, one of them to be
called the borough of Hackney, which would return
two membera, making four altogether. The other
two members would be e;tven to it new metropolitan
borough comprising Chelsea and the parts adja-
cent. Then they recommended the house to
confer one member on each of the following towns:
Hartlepool, Darlington, Middlesborough, Burnley,
St. Helen's, Barnsley, Dewsbury, Stalybridgu,
Wednesietry, and Gravesend. These were the
towns that were comprised in the former plan.
He now PrOPOSell tip add the *owns of Stockton,
Keighley, and Litton (with the parts adjacent).
He pnipoited also an additional member for the two
bormighs of Salford and Merthyr Tydvil. These
made PI additional borough seats. The g 'vent-
ment were still of opinion that London University
should lie represented in parliament, but they re-
commended the committee to consider whether it
would nut be expedient to connect with it the
represeutation of the University of Durham. There
remain...4l 23 seats, which he proposed al Id be
allotted to counties. He proposed that West Kent,
North Lancashire, East Surrey, and South Lan-
cashire should he divided, and have seven addi-
tional members amongst them. He then took
nine of the need considerable counties in England
• —Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Somerset-
shire, West Riding of Yorkshire, Cheshire, Nor-
• folk, Staffordshire, and Essex—and ho proposed
that these counties should each be divided into
three parts, and that each part should be repre-
• •sented by two members, and the eighteen seats
thus allotted would make up the forty-five seats
which were placed at their disposal. He believed
that these counties contained a population, irre-
spective of that of the parliamentary boroughs in
them, of something like four millions, and they
represented agricultural, manufacturing, and
mineral industries to an enormous extent. This
plan, he added, had been prepared without any
view to party interests. Nevertheless, he was not
• sanguine enough to hope that it would escape criti-
• Diem, and what, therefore, he recommended was,
that the house should give large but well-
defined powers to the boundary commis-
: Moners, and that they should reserve their criti-
cism until that commission had dealt with the
schedules which were necessarily and avowedly of
a temporary character, and they had the Boundary
Bill before them. He hoped on Monday to lay on
the table amendments on the third portion of the
bill, which would define the duties and powers of
the boundary commissioners, and also well pre-
pared clauses on registration, which in consequence
of the changes made in the franchises were neces-
sary. In conclusion he moved that the chairman
report progress.
Mr. Latex agreed that it would be more conve-;
nient to postpone the discussion. The plan of the
government was not much different from his own,
except that it did not give as ho proposed addi-
tional representation to six or seven large towns.
On Monday he should certainly move that addi-
tional members be given to those towns.
Mr. CARDWELL thought it reasonable that they
ahould abstain from discussing the proposal of the
government till they had the details before them,
but he asked if further information could not be
•given as to how the additional representation was
to be obtained for Scotland.
Sir F. Gourmet!) expressed his strong disapproval
of the proposition to combine the Universities of
London and of Durham for the purposes of repre-
sentation.
The Custresucia of the EXCHEQUER said he had
already clearly expressed the views of the govern-
:silent with regard to the additional representation
of Scotland—that he did not think it should be
given by depriving England of a portion of its
representation.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house
resumed.
On the order of the day for going into committee
of supply,
• Mr. H. BAILLIR moved the appointment of a
select committee to consider the present state and
condition of the Ordnance department ; but after
ammo discussion, in which Lord Elcho, General
Peel, and Sir John Pakington took part, the
'notion was withdrawn, and the house went into
committee, and proceeded with the navy estimates.
On the vote of 267,0671., for the coast guard, a
lengthened discussion took place on the subject of
the royal naval reserve, to the increasing expendi-
ture under which head attention was called by
Admiml Erskine, who complained moreover that
that body was in an inefficient state, and alleged
that the force was not even on paper, and pre-
dicted that if it ever came to be wanted it would
not be found.
Mr. CORRY, however, contended that the force
was in an efficient state, and that the men were
well trained.

• The vote was agreed to, as, after considerable
discussion, wore the remainder of the votes in
these estimates.
The Railways (Scotland) Bill passed through com-
mittee, and some other business having been dis-
posed of, the house adjourned at half-past one.

REPRESENTATION OF COUNTIES. —Tho Suffolk
Chamber of Agriculture discussed on Wednesday the sub-1
sect of the representation of counties in relation to thee,
government scheme now before the House of Commons for
the redistribution of seats. Lord A. Hervey, M.P., and
other gentlemen addressed the meeting, and the following
resolution WM unanimously adopted and ordered to be
forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer -" That
in the opinion of this meeting the counties are not ride.'
qtrately represented in parliament, either with regard to
population or property. That a large addition ought to
be made to the number of county members. That the
counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, and Essex especially, com-
prising altogether a large area, from their import.mee in
population and property, and having since the passing of
the Reform Bill in 1832 lost seven members, are entitled
to additional representation, and ought in future to return
ix knights of the shire instead of four."
' Ma. BANTER, M.P., AND THE REFORM QUESTION.
—At a meeting of the rbroath branch of the Scottish
Reform League, held on Tuesday evening, s letter from
Mr. Baxter, M.P.' was read, stating that he had presented
a petition from the branch praying for certain amend-
ments in the Scotch Reform Bill. With referenoe to there
Mr. Baxter wrote :—" I agree generally with the prayer ;
bat don't you think that household suffrage in counties
would hand them over to the landlords! An agricultural
labourer is a very different person from an artisan in a
burgh." One of the persons at the meeting was of opinion
that employers in towns had as much influence over their
sworkpeople as landlords in counties. Others stated that
licemehold suffrage in counties would enfranchise the
artisans is villages, who were not under the landlords.