Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-01 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TUESDAY, MARCH. 1 1859

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS -MONDAY.
THE EVACUATION OF THE ROMAN STATES,

The _ Earl of Malmesbury, in reply to the Earl of
Clarendon, repeated his assertion that the French and
Austrians were about to retire from the Roman States, at
the direct request of the Papal Government. The French
Ambassador had declared lately to himself that his
Government were most anxious to withdraw their troops.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.
The law of Debtors' and Creditors' Amendment Bill
was read a second time.

After some discussion, the house adjourned at a guar-

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock, but long
before that hour the house was densely filled in every
part. Among those present were the American minister,
the Duke of. Cambridge, Lord Campbell, and many other
peers.
Mr. Edwin James took his seat for Marylebone.
THE NEW REFORM BILL.
At twenty minutes to five,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to ask for leave
to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the
representation of the people in England and Wales. He
commenced by observing that the state of the public
mind and its familiarity with change render the task of
introducing a Reform Bill far easier than in 1832.
Looking to its result, he admitted that this measure
was adequate to the emergency of the time;
still he would not attribute to that bill all the excellent
measures which had passed during the last 25 years.
He would not forget that we had an excellent administra-
tion, and that parliament was before that time in advance
of the country ; still that bill, without doubt, added
greatly to the political energies of the country. That
measure was without doubt an experimental one. Those
who introduced it were compelled to trust the subject
empirically, and some, if not many, deficiences occurred
in consequence. Since that time our progress had not
only been rapid, but perceptible. There had been no
instance in history of so vast an increase of population
and capital. With that increase the increase of intelli-
gence had kept pace, and universal discoveries had been
made which had annihilated both time and space. It was,
therefore, not surprising that there were deficiencies
that ought to be supplied. Hence the question had
first become a public, then a Parliamentary, and at last a
Ministerial question. It had been a Ministerial question
for the last ten years. It was two years ago that the
Prime Minister in that House said that a change ought
to be made. Events prevented that opinion from being
acted on, but in 1852, in that very month of February,
the speech from' the Throne proclaimed the necessity of
making a change in the bill of 1832. In consequence a
measure of Parliamentary reform was brought forward
by the Prime Minister of the day. A change of Adminis-
tration prevented the measure from being proceeded
with, but two years later a minister born and bred in the
Tory camp, was also of opinion that it was his
duty to recommend a measure of reform to his
Sovereign, and an announcement to that effect
was once more made in the Royal speech of 1854. In-
consequence' another measure was brought forward by the
Government of Lord Aberdeen, one supposed to be yet
stronger and more comprehensive than the preceding.
The great war which succeeded again prevented the
measure from being proceeded with. Before that war
ended, another change of administration took place, and
a noble Lord succeeded to the head of affairs of whom it
might be assuredly said that he did not feel any morbid
sympathy with advanced legislation, but he repeated to
the sovereign the advice given by Lord John Russell and
Lord Aberdeen, and the royal speech, for the third time,
proclaimed that the attention of the legislature
would be called to Parliamentary reform. The house
had shown no disinclination to deal with the matter, and
private members gave repeated indications of their desire
to proceed with a detailed bill, which was the state of
affairs when Lord Derby assumed the reins of power.
They could not allow a question which three of our
greatest prime ministers had declared in royal speeches
ought to be pressed forward, to remain in abeyance.
Could they allow such a matter to be placed in the hands
of an opposition. Could they allow that on which hung
the destinies of the country to be made a desperate
resource of faction, or were they to wait till the public
mind was excited on the subject, till the nation was com-
pelled calmly to judge what ought to be the fundamental
basis of their constitution. It was not the part of an hon-
ourable government to allow things to be placed in that state.

It was therefore the unanimous opinion of the cabinet of
Lord Derby that the question must be dealt with, and
dealt with in an earnest and sincere spirit. It had been
said that it was not for Lord Derby to undertake the
task. He altogether denied the statement. What was
there in the antecedents of Lord Derby to preclude him
from • dealing with parliamentary reform. Had it not
been for the energy of Lord Grey and Lord Stanley, the
reform bill of 1832 would never have passed in its
present form. There was nothing in the position or
opinions of members on that side of the house to
prevent them from supporting a measure of reform.
He had himself when in opposition declared that
he should offer no opposition to the introduction
of a bill for remodelling the constitution of that house.
In pursuance, therefore, of the pledge given on the
accession of the Government of Lord Derby, he proposed
to call their attention to a measure which, he thought,
would be found politic to adopt. Parliamentary
Reformers might be divided into two classes—one of those
who adopt the bill of 1832 to the circumstances of 1859,
keeping in mind all the principles of the constitution.
In that class might be reckoned her Majesty's Ministers;
but there was another—he might call it a new school— -
who were of opinion that the sole object was to
realise the commercial state of the people. Their
standard was population. Now population, no doubt,
must be one of the elements of their consideration.
There was also the consideration of property.. The new
school had, with a murmur, admitted the right of pro-
perty. Property, and population went hand in hand only
in statistics—in reality, they were constantly separated.
In his opinion, there was something more to be thought of
than population and property. There were divers inter-
ests in the country often conflicting with each other.
These interests were necessarily local, and therefore scat-
tered all over the country. Let them take, for instance,
the case of the metropolis and Scotland. Their popula-
tions were about equal, but their wealth was not equal.
The metropolis was rated by the income tax at £44,000,000,
while Scotland was only rated at £30,000,000 ; yet who
would demand for the metropolis a larger number of
representatives than the varied interests of Scotland.
Take again the city of London proper. The city of
London was richer than twenty-five English and Welsh
counties, than 146 boroughs, than Manchester, Birming-
ham, and Liverpool put together, than fifteen of the
very largest boroughs in the kingdom, and yet the city of
London was satisfied with its representatives. The
representatives were to represent not only the power,
but the interest of the several boroughs. He would
venture to say that many members in that house had
as direct an interest in the prosperity of Liverpool
as the two members who represented it. Was the power
of the city of
_London to be measured by the four
members who represented it. The test, therefore,
of the new school was altogether fallacious—
their principles of population only applied when popula-
tion was concentrated. It used to be a favourite
argument of various reformers, amongst others Mr.
Hume, to describe small and remote boroughs with little
business, and compare the two members returned by the
great City of Manchester. He himself had then stated
his dissent from the principle, as not only false but
dangerous to the country, and fatal to that house. If
population was to be the standard, it was not to the
great towns they could give their additional members,
what then was the case of North Cheshire, with its popu-
lation of 249,000. It had two great towns with a
population of 93,000, which returned four members, while
the residue of the county returned only two members,
Taking again South Cheshire, it had a town with a
I population of 28,000 returning two members, while the
residue of the county with a population of 178,000
returned likewise only two members. In North Derby
again, there was one town of 40,000 inhabitants return-
ing two members, while the rest of the county with
166,000 population returned the same number of mem-
bers. There were many instances of the same kind. If
therefore they acted on the principle of the new school,
they must disfranchise the boroughs, and give the mem-
bers to the counties. He had never heard any answer
to the argument, " what would be the consequence if
the population tests were adopted ?" The House
would no doubt be a most respectable assembly,
but it would not represent the interests of Eng-
land. Representation was but a means to an end,
and it ought to be the mirror of the mind of the
nation. They wanted all the interests of the country
represented. The professional mind represented by per-
sons not too intimately wedded to any of those interests,
but who were fair specimens of the vast variety of the
English character. Hitherto they had obtained that and,
j for their system, though not framed for the ,object, had
I yet indirectly fulfilled it, and if, therefore, they abolished
that system, they were bound to find in its place another
equally effective. Now there was one remarkable feature
in the agitation of the new school. They offer no substi-
tute for the machinery of the constitution. They lay down
inexorable rules, and follow them to their logical conse-
quences. The representatives under such a system would
represent vast wealth, but it would cease to be the House
of Commons—it would cease to have any hold on the

executive. The exizeriment had been tried in vafions
countries, always with Ole same result. The executive
could not be controlled by; two or three classes, and the
consequences would be that we ,should have an exclusive
assembly of parliament taken front a limited class and a
bureaucratic administration. If the House was
re-constructed on the new principle of popula-
tion, 'they would have, after all their reforms,
to go back to the same'
,ignominions ppsition
from which the energy of English gentlemen rescued
the country two centuries ago. Now, as the _prosperity
of the country had increased, and new interests were
called into existence, the desire for the increase of the
suffrage became stronger. It was a natural desire, and
arose from no enmity to the Constitution, but from a
desire to participate ire its benefits. In the arrangement
which had been considered by the Government, they
never took into their account whether their plans would
or would not diminish the' constituencies of the country ;
they only considered whether all that deserved it'would
be equa:ly represented. Now, first as to the borough
franchise. That franchise had been fixed by the
reform bill at the occupation of those of £lO
annual value. There appeared to be a general
desire that the test should be' not the value, but the
rating. With this opinion he partly sympathised, and
there were many advantages in making the rate-book the
register; but were they prepared to give the power of
fixing the constituency to the overseers. There must be
an appeal, and in that case they must have the machinery
of the revising barristers over again; besides which, the
rating of the country was very unequal, often absurdly.
He took the instance of the 'borough of Boston, in which
there were two parishes, one rated at half, the other at
two-thirds of the value. The effect of adopting an £8
rating would be to disfranchise 400 electors of Boston,
while the same £8 rating, if adopted as a test at
River "would double the constituency. Many objections
had been urged against the £lO franchise ; it had been

declared to be founded upon no principle, and to be a
monopolist franchise. Now, he derned that it was founded
on. no. principle. It was said, why should a man with a
£lO qualification have the franchise, while one with a £9
qnalification was deprived of it ? This was an objection
to all tests. He contended that the £lO franchise was
universal, and afforded a fair presumption that•the holder
was qualified to exercise the franchise. He equally denied
that it was monopolist. He included a vast variety of per-

sons from those who pay £lO rent to those who pay £4OO.
He admitted that many persons were now excluded who
ought to have'the franchise. But their admission would
not be secured by lowering. the franchise. If they, for
instance, took a £5 franchise, they would then have really
a monopolist constituency,— one, of which the predominant
power would be identi&l, and not represent the variety
of opinion in Englishmen ; they would not, while altering
the suffrage, abrogate the territorial influence in order
to introduce a household democracy. He then
came to , his own proposition. He proposed to
introduce into the constituency a class of persons
who had hitherto been excluded from it. He proposed
that persons possessed of funded property, East India
Bonds, Bank Stock, should be entitled to vote if such
property amounted to £lO annually; there would be in the
bill provisions for ascertaining the facts of each case. The
persons_having property to the amount of £6O in the
savings bank for a year, would possess the franchise as
well at those who were entitled to a pension of £2O
annually, as having belonged to the military, naval,, or
civil services of her Majesty. He further proposed to
enfranchise dwellers in parts of houses whose aggregate
rent amounted to £2O annually, or 8s a week. No pro-
poSal for an educational franchise had been laid before the
government, which in their opinion would accurately work

in association with learned or scientific bodies-. But
there were four classes whom he proposed to enfranchise
whose claim in some respects depended on education.
These were, graduates of all universities, ministers of all
denominations, under certain regulations which would be
found in the bill, members of the legal profession, all
members of the medical professions registered under the
late act, and lastly, such schoolmasters as possessed a cer-
tificate from the council. He should have more to say on
the borough franchise, but first he would say

something on that of the counties. The
principle adopted for the franchise in the
Reform Bill was that of possession in the counties and
occupation in the towns. That principle had been vio-
lated in cases of the Chandos clause,• the history and
effect of which he described with much detail. y That
class of voters had been viewed with distrust and sus-
picion. A most undue influence had been ascribed to •
the vote of these men. They did not form more than
one-fifth of the whole members of the country voters, so
that even if they had all voted one way, they would not
have had the influence ascribed to them. But they voted
various ways. There were great Whig landlords as well
as great Tory landlords. It was thus attempted by the
creation of the 40s. franchise to counteract the influence
of the the £5O tenant clause. The consequence was that
more voters for counties did not live in such counties than
the whole number of voters created by , the Chandos
clause. He described the mischief, , amounting to a civil
war in its way, which folloWed from the conflict of classes.
The present state of things was much to be deprecated,
voters, whether for borough or county, should sympathise
With the rest of the constituency; but, under the present
element of that constituency, this was altogether impos-
sible. How, then, were they. to restore the good feelinc,
of .the people, when it was impossible to propose the .
exclusion of . those, who he called strangers, from the
county constituency. The Government had 'given the
subject their most anxious, laborious, and
. thoughtful consideration, and he thought that
there was a principle of which all mast
acknowledge the justice, and which if applied with
due discretion, would effect all that was desired. That
prinCiple was the recognition of identity of Suffrage
between counties and towns, the forty shilling freeholders
now resident in towns would be enabled to record their
votes for these towns, and the forty shilling freeholders
of the town resident in the counties would record their
votes from the counties, thus the great principle that
each voter should vote for the place where he resided
would be established, all the large extra-mural popu-
lation of the great boroughs would thus if qualified have
votes for the counties, and to carry out this principle more
completely he proposed that boundary commissioners
should be appointed which should re-arrange the bounda-
ries of the several boroughs in accordance with the times.
He believed that this could be done without suspicion of
party motives by means of the machinery of the present
enclosure commissioners,who would appoint deputies,who
would report to the government, and that report would
be finally submitted to the criticism of that house. He
might be asked what effect all this would have on the
members of the constituencies of the counties. He held
in his hand a paper from Mr. Newmarcb, who estimated '
the increase of the county constituency by the adoption
of the £lO occupation franchise on the counties at 123,000.
His own estimate was much larger, and amounted to not
less than 200,000. It had been proposed to adopt the.
£2O occupation franchise in the counties ; but he saw no
reason for trusting the loyalty or respectability of a £2O
occupier over those of a £l6 occupier. The only tangible
objection to the plan proposed was, that it would lead to
electoral districts. But he believed that electoral districts
were so alien to the feelings, principles, and ideas of
the country, that he had no fear it would ever
be adopted. That principle was founded as no others
than the same numerical majority, and would never be
admitted as long as Englishmen had any sense of their
own dignities. If the proposal for reform which had been
sketchod out were adopted, they would have at once an
homogenous constituency, with a vast variety of charac-
ters. He believed the proper principle of representation
to be a constituency numerous enough to be independent,
and select enough to be responsible. This he believed
would be secured by the plan which he had just pro-
pounded. He now came to his proposition for reform-
ing the mode of registration. He proposed that in
future there should be a se If-acting register for
the counties, that the overseer of each parish should
make out a list of owners and occupiers, which could be
revised and added to subsequently. There were other
regulations which he would omit for the present, besides
his plan. No one need make a claim to be registered
unless he found his name omitted. As to the mode of
voting, he wished to put an end to those scandals which
had occurred at late elections. He proposed, in the first
instance, greatly to increase the number of polling
places in every parish where there are two hundred
electors, and where the number is less, the
parishes would be grouped till they readied that num-
ber, and a polling place established for each group.
Each voter would vote for the place where he resided, and
therefore a residency qualification register would be kept
as well as a property qualification register. The expense
of the various polling places would be thrown upon the
counties. He would not compel all the voters to vote
personally, and should therefore propose voters may make
use of polling papers. That system had been tried
elsewhere, and the consequence was, that 90 per cent.
of the electors voted for the guardians of the poor, while
for the legislature of this great country, only fifty
or sixty per cent. voted. He believed that a machinery
might be devised which would prevent all attempts at
deception or personification, which, if attempted, would
be made a misdemeanour. But it was n,ot enough to
make provision for the proper erection of a constituency.
It was their duty to see that the various interests of the
country were adequately represented. Their object was,
he repeated, to complete the scheme of tan, and to adapt
it to 1859, so as to take the question for a long period
: out of the domain of agitation, and
make it as far as possible a conclusive
I settlement. This task he endeavoured to honestly and
j without respect of reasons, On this principle he would

state ithere he foJind a want of representatives, and an
representat;on. He found both of these
held in the West Wing .and in South Lancashire. He
propabd, • therefore, to add four members to the West
which was studded towns not large enough
to be singly represented, and had ;Tiany various interests.
He would divide the West Riding for this' purpose
into three divisions, founded on . the amount of
property in the Wapentakes. ScrtFf>lr Lan,flashire would
obtain two additional members, being also Divided into
two additional divisions. Middlesex -would retie: Ye two
further members, being also. divided info' two seciOns.
These eight members were all that he preposad to add it.'
the counties. • As to new boroughs, Hartlepool,. with its
rapid developement of its industry, demanded member .;
another would be ...iron to Birkenhead for the smni,
com-
mercial reason. To that part of Staffordshire culled the
I Black district,' which was the centre of an enormous
trade, he would give a member, and to West
Bromwich and Wedneebury united. He further
allotted one to Burnley and Staleybridge,
in South Lancashire. "Coming to the south, he would
give a member to Croydon, and another to Gravesend.
He declared that, after profound study with regard to
the various interests of the country, these' were the only
places that required' new representation. Thus fifteen
new members were to be supplied by the constitutional
means which had always been adopted. He did. not' agree
with the denunciators of small constituencies, believing
that a•constituency 'of 500 would choose as good a repre-
sentative as one of 1,000. If there was one borough in
England liable to all the objections of small constituency
and nomination, it was Arundel; yet it was that borough
which sent the single representative of the 900000
Roman Catholics of England-L-900,000. It was more
than the West Riding, and double the Tower Hamle/a.
By the principle of his measure, no elector would be
disfranchised; if he' lost his vote for his borough, he got
it for his county. He did not propose that any bo-
rough represented by a single member should leave
that member. To obtain the fifteen seats, they must
make an equal, though an arbitrary rule. It would be
found that there- were exactly fifteen boroughs in Eng-
land, which should bring two members with a population
under 6,000. It would be a singular opportunity for the
exhibition of the patriotism of these fifteen boroughs, if
they would, without compulsion, consent to forego their
members. The bill, therefore, contained a provision, that
in the next parliament these boroughs would return one
member each. The list was as follows Honiton, Thet-
ford, Eversham, Harwich, Wells, Richmond, Leominster,
Andover, Tewkesbury, Marlborough, Knaresborough,
Totness, Leamington Ludlow, and Maldon. He concluded
by saying that, such as it was, he delivered this measure
to the House of Commons, convinced that they would deal
with it as became a wise and understanding people.
Mr. Baxter moved as an amendment, -that the
measures for England, Scotland, and Ireland, should be
considered in the same bill. - -
A miscellaneous debate followed, during which
The Lord Advocate promised to introduce a measure
for Scotland.
Mr. W. M. Fox protested against the bill, as doing
nothing for the working classes:
Lord J. Russell disapproved of the clause in the bill
which deprived the 435. freeholders of their right to vote
for counties, giving them in return a vote for the town in
which they resided. On that ground alone lie should
vote against the bill. He further complained that the
bill did nothing for the working classes by reducing the
franchise. Unless the change was an improvement as
regarded the people, they had better not change at all.
Mr. Roebuck declaimed strongly against the bill, as
intended solely to increase the power of the landed
gentry, and, doing nothing for the working classes. He
had hitherto supported the government, but he could do
so no longer. Every stage of the bill should be opposed
by all the friends of the people.
Mr. Bright observed that people seldom do well that
for which they were not .fitted. He regretted that the
party now in power should have attempted even to open
the question. None of the just complaints against the
bill of 1832 were satisfied by the present. He urged
the claims of the working classes, who would be bitterly
disappointed when they learnt the provisions of the
proposed measure. The government ought to be ashamed
of offering such a tritling-.--he would say—such an
insulting proposal. All the fancy franchises
which it offered were only to keep up
up the appearance of giving something when it gave
nothing. He protested against the transfer of a large
portion of the 40s. freeholders from the counties to the
boroughs. Such a measure would create. nothing but
anger and disgust throughout the country. The right
hon. gentleman talked of interests, but he never explained
what he meant by that term. He himself hoped not to
have been compelled to introduce his own bill, but he
felt that he must now take that step in opposition to a
measure which disturbed everything and settled nothing.
Mr. Drummond agreed that the present bill did not go
to the point, and could not understand for what object it
was introduced. He knew what the hon. gentlemen
opposite were at, but for the life of him he did not know
how to meet the bill.
Lord Palmerston, deferring his opinion as to the
details of the bill, hoped that a sufficient time would be
given for consideration before the second reading.
Mr. Crossley professed himself grievously dissappointed
with the bill.
Mr. E. James said, that the liberal feelings of the
country would not be satisfied by this measure.
Mr. Bentinck protested against the levelling doctrines
of Mr. Bright.
Mr. P. O'Brien wished to know if Ireland was to be
altogether ignored on.the subject.
Mr. Roupell expressed himself dissatisfied with the
measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the various
points raised during the debate. The government was
ready to take up the ease of Ireland, a bill of reform for
which country would be introduced in due course. With
regard to the second reading of the bill, he proposed to
take it on that day three weeks.
Mr. Baxter withdrew his amendment, and •
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
On the motion of the Solicitor-General, the Title of
Landed Estates, and the Registry of Landed Estates Bills'
were read a second time.
The House adjourned at half-past eleven.