The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 14, 1854.

pasted by way of
et their compromise,
hsee
altns\
i:ghhbitcehtta
kpbereoevemi
idiegeecilbulutehd at all
t hbee
iceirefwbne thersshoeful d
vacate
re-elected. As long as the House of Commons continued
unreformed—as
the
ewere e
Treasury
snuurym bee;
doefpceondyeennti convenient
m
bers connected
mpembers
in immediate connection with the Ministry, no
great inconvenience was experienced from the operation of
the act. When Mr. Canning accepted the office of Se-
cretary of State he vacated his seat for Liverpool, and was
immediately returned for Harwich, because the latter was
an easier seat, and would cause him less trouble than
-must attend the representation of a large town like Liver-
noel. In those times, when a seat could always be found
for any person for whom it was required, Ministers suf-
fered little inconvenience from the act of Anne ; but when
the principle of popular representation was introduced into
all our elections, the statute created difficulties which
wore hardly compensated by the advantage of having new
elections. The theory is, that a person ought to go before
his constituents in order to enable them to decide whether
they will have a member who is a servant of the Crown,
or one who is perfectly independent. Now, in point of
fact, that question hardly ever arises on such au occasion ;
but the question which generally arises is—" What is the
most embarrassing topic connected with the member va-
cating his seat," or "is he likely or not to obtain his re-
turn ?" The consequence of this state of things is, that
very often the Crown is embarrassed in its choice, and is
obliged to select a person whose re-election is sure, rather
than one more fitted for the office, but whose re-election
is doubtful. lam of opinion that no public benefit which
may arise from an adherence to the principle of popular
control in the representation can be equivalent to the ad-
vantages arising from it in this instance. If Ministers
are to appear in this house, and to be answerable for the
conduct of affairs, they ought to advise the Crown to give
office—if to members of Parliament—to such members as
in their judgment are most fitting to hold it. It must be
obvious that there are many things which a member may
do fully as important as taking office, without asking the
opinion of his constituents. For instance, he may totally
change his course of politics. (Hear, hear, and laughter
from the Opposition.) Upon such an occasion he may, or
may not think it advisable to go before his constituents,
but the decision on that point rests with himself. For
these reasons we think the operation of the statute in
question is not generally beneficial, while it is very often
inconvenient, and therefore we propose its abolition, and
to allow any member— as was the case during the reign of
William lll.—to accept office under the Crown without
vacating his seat. I will now proceed to state to the house
the various boroughs from which we propose taking one
member, and likewise the places to which we propose
giving the members thus removed. I mentioned to the
house two classes of boroughs from which respectively 29
and 33 seats are to be taken. To these 62 seats it is neces-
sary to add 4 more which are now vacant, making a total
of 66. I will state the places to which we propose giving
6.1 of the vacant seats. The remaining 3 will be given by a
measure which I will not now stop to describe, to populous
I.!aces and universities of Scotland. First, as regards, the
places from which seats will be taken. The following bo-
i sighs, having less than 300 electors, or less than 5,000 in-
habitants, will be disfranchised :—Andover, 2 members ;
A rundel, 1; Ashburton, 1; Caine, 1; Dartmouth, 1 ;
Evesham, 2 ; Harwich, 2 ; Honiton, 2 ; Knaresborough,
2 ; Lyme Regis, 1 ; Marlborough, 9 ; Midhurst, 1 ;
orthallerton, 1 ; Reigate, 1; Richmond (Yorkshire) 2 ;
Thetford, 2 ; Totnes, 2-; Wells, 2 ; Wilton, I.—Total, 19
boroughs, returning 29 members. The following bo-
roughs having less than 500 electors, or less than 10,000
inhabitants, will lose one seat each ;—Bodmin, Bridge-
north, Bridport, Buckingham, Chichester, Chippenham,
Cirencester, Cockermouth, Devizes, Dorchester, Guild-
ford, Hertford, Huntingdon, Leominster, Lewes, Lud-
low, Lymington, Lichfield, Malden, Mahon, Marlow,
(Great), Newport (Isle of Wight.), Peterborough, Poole,
Ripon, Stamford, Tamworth, Tavistock, Tewkesbury,
Tiverton, Weymouth, Windsor, Wycombe (Chipping)—
total, 33 members. The counties and divisions of counties
containing a population of more than 100,000, and at pre-
sent returning two members, to which an additional mem-
ber will be given are these :—Bedford ; Chester, southern
division ; ditto, northern ; Cornwall, western ; ditto,
eastern ; Derby, northern ; ditto, southern ; Devon,
southern ; ditto, northern ; Durham, northern ; ditto,
southern ; Essex, southern ; ditto, northern ; Gloucester,
western ; Kent, western . ditto, eastern ; Lancaster,
northern ; Lincoln, parts of indsey ; ditto, parts of Kes-
teven and Holland ; Middlesex ' Monmouth ; Norfolk,
western ; ditto, eastern ; Stafford, northern ; ditto, south-
ern ; Somerset, western ; ditto, eastern ; Salop, northern ;
Southampton, northern ; Suffolk, eastern ; ditto, western ;
Surrey. eastern, Sussex, eastern ; Warwick, northern ;
Worcester, eastern ; York, East Riling ; ditto, North.
Wales.—Glamorgan, 1. Additional members, 38. The
cities and boroughs containing more than 100,000 inhabi-
tents at present returning two members but, hereafter are
to return three : Birmingham, Bristol (city), Bradford
(Yorkshire), Leeds, Liverpool, 3lanchester (city), Sheffield,
Wolverhampton ; Salford, to return in future two mem-
bers—total nine members. Unrepresented towns contain-
ing more than 20,000 inhabitants to receive one member
each are :—Birkenhead, Burnley, Stalevbridge—total, 3
members. I have already mentioned that ti.e West Riding
of Yorkshire and South Lancashire are each to be divided
into parts, with two members each, which will appropriate
eight more of the vacant seats. The new borough of Chel-
sea and Kensington will take two more • the Inns of Court
two, the Loudon University one ; and all these together,
with the three seats reserved for Scotland, make up the
total number of 66.
A MEMBER asked whether each division of the West
Riding and South Lancashire was to have three members ?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—Yes. It may be convenient to the
house if I give a summary of the manner in which we pro
pose disposing of the 66 vacant seats. It is thus :
Counties, and divisions of counties 3B
West Riding
South Lancashire
Three new boroughs, one each
One new borough
Nine boroughs, one each additional....
Inns of Court
London Uni-yersity
Scotland

3

. 9

ITotal
I have stated the general provisions of the measure, I hope
not at too great length, but in such a way as to make it
understood by the house. I will not enter further into
any general considerations connected with the subject. It
is my belief that the measure will tend to correct defects
which, sooner or later, must be amended, and that, by
adding to the number of persons privileged to return mem-
bers to this house, we shall give a wider basis to our re-
presentation, and thereby contribute to the strength and
security of our constitution, end cause the people to feel
greater confidence in it. With these observations I ask
leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the
representation of the people in England Wales.
Mr. H. T. LIDDELL said, he rose thus early in the
debate, because the hon. member for Manchester thought
tit to open the proceedings of the evening by present-
ing a petition signed by some 3,000 names of the in-
habitants of Liverpool, imputing bribery and corrup-
tion to the freemen of that constituency. He (Mr. Liddell)
rejoiced that he had done so ; because, without any
violation of the rules of the house, he was enabled to
meet the charge at the earliest possible moment. (Hear,
hear.) He trusted the hon. member for Manchester
would take the first opportunity of making some specific
motion upon the requirements of that petition. He told
the hon. member that he (Mr. Liddell) was prepared to
fight the battle of the freemen of Liverpool, to vindicate
their character, and maintain their rights. He trusted
that the house would not be misled by the appear
ance of a bulky petition with 3,000 signatures, when he
reminded them that the population of Liverpool consisted
of 500,000, with a constituency of about 17,000 electors on
the register. He rejoiced that the noble lord did not pro-
l.ose a bill of disfranchisement against any of the existing
freemen, though he might see reason to object to the future
disfranchisement of that class of voters. As regarded the
measure which the noble lord had sketched for the consi-
deration of the house, he could not help remarking
that the reference to the petition of the Friends of the
People had cut the ground from under his feet. The noble
lord read seriatim, all the complaints contained in that cele-
brated document, and then declared that the causes of
every one of them had been removed by the Reform Act.
It was not his desire, nor was it the desire of those with
whom he acted, to add to the difficulties in which the
noble lord appeared to be prepared to plunge the country
by discussing at the present moment a subject of this ex-
citing nature. He hoped that the measure would not
reach a second reading, but that it would be postponed in
deference to the feelings and welfare of the country. The
nohle lord had begun by stating that 19 boroughs, which
returned 29 members, were to be disfranchised. Was it
possible that the noble lord could proceed to a measure of
disfranchisement of that extent withont provoking a most
painful discussion both on the pare of friends and foes, or
could he possibly proceed to the prospective disfranchise-
ment of freemen without occasioning a vast amount of
painful and acrimonious discussion ? (He T, hear.) In the
present House of Commons the noble lord knew the sup-
port which he might anticipate iu case of need ; but if he
carried the bill which he had laid upon tise table it would
almost involve the necessity of a dissolution of Parliament
(lmin the summer or autumn ; and who could tell what
changes and vicissitudes might take place in the course of
a orotracted war, or in what temper the people of Eng-
lead might be at the time when the dissolution took
place ? (Hear, hear.) The noble earl at the head
of the Government had stated in another place that the
hope of preserving peace need not yet be abandoned.
That hope, he feared, was shared by very few persons in
this country, and in whatever bosom it found a refuge it
must be a hope very near akin to despair. He certainly
enuild not share that hope, and, as he believed the country
to be nearly involved in a war which was likely to be
more protracted in duration, anti to be fraught with more
serious consequences than the noble lord seemed to antici-
pate, ho conjured him once more to consider whether the
present was not a juncture at which such a measure ought
not to be pressed upon Parliament. Before he sat down
Both: ds:3;ol.lapnoall.
‘tvhhleh washe
thought one p 0 i I
thelt t to
housewhich
wha
es
ewnitsihtleedd to some
Cabinet the resignation of the noble lord the Home Secre-
tien. During the discussion of the Reform Bill in the
tees, had been made known to the country. He begged to
assure the noble lord that, as no man upon the Treasury
bench possessed more the confidence of the country than
the noble lord, so no man in that house was prepared to
speak of him with more respect than he was ; but he
thought the noble lord owed it to is own character, and
to the satisfaction of the house and the country, now that
tint, the questiln of Parliamentary reform was brought
fairly under their notice, to give some explanation of that
retirement which, at a very moment of our domestic his-
tory, left this country for 12 days without a Home Secre-
tary. He hoped the noble lord knew that he was of shffi-
chset importance, and filled sufficient space in the estima-
tion of his countrymen, to render anything that he did
in % public matter the subject of remark, and deserving
etesh an explanation as the circumstance might seem to
(lernand. Upon that account he wished to ask the noble
lord if he would condescend to inform the house
what were the circumstances in connection with the
Reform Bill which had led him to abandon the
helm which he guided with so much vigour, and
leave the country at a most critical period 12 days without
a Secretary of State for the Home Department? (Hear.)
Mr. H. BAILLIE asked whether the same principle
which had been laid down for England would also be ap-
plied to Scotland, and whether all places which did not
contain 300 electors would be disfranchised ?
Mr. F. FRENCH asked tlse same question with reference
to Ireland, and also whether counties with populations
exceeding 100,000 were to have additional members, as in
England ?
Mr. ELLICE thought it rather hard that the noble lord
shertld have included all the freemen of this country in his
charge of general corruption. Since he had represented
those truly honest, independent, and incorruptible men,
the electors of Cover. try, in that house, now nearly 40
years, he defied the noble lord to say that upon any occa-
sion had any charge of corruption been made against the
freemen portion of his constituents. . There was one good
argument upon which-it appeared to him that the right of
the freemen could be maintained. The house wished to

give the franchise to the best instructed of the working
classes. The process by which the freemen of Coventry
gained their votes was by serving seven years to the same
master in the same city. Unless their conduct was good,
and their masters certified to that effect, they could not
obtain their freedom ; and what better proof, he asked,
than such a servitude could they have of the fitness and.
qualifications of a man to exercise the elective franchise ?
(Hear, hear.) This was not the time when they should.
take away one of the franchises of the workmen of this
country. They were just now engaged in a struggle for
the maintenance of the value of their labour, and he asked
them at such a time not to deprive them of the right of
being represented in that house, especially when their fit-
ness to be represented might favourably contrast with that
of any other class in the community. (Hear.)
Mr. GEACH corroborated the views of his right hon.
colleague with respect to the freemen of Coventry, and ex-
pressed his opinion that the system of freedoms provided a
class of voters of greater aggregate intelligence and political
knowledge than could be obtained in any other manner.
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped that the freemen of Lincoln
would treat with the same contempt that he did the un-
just, unnecessary, and unworthy observations of the noble
lord. He wished that her Majesty's Ministers might be as
honest, upright, and straightforward as they were. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) Then we should have the Treasury
bench more pure, more to be relied on, and deserving of
greater confidence than it was at this moment. He had
known those freemen for years. He entertained the
highest opinion of them, and he would not condescend, ob-
jectiug as he did to the bill almost altogether, to do more
than to repeat his hope that the freemen of Lincoln would
treat the unworthy stigma which the noble lord had
thought proper to place upon them with that contempt
which he told the noble lord that he did. (Laughter.)
Colonel BL AIR wished to know if counties in Scotland
with a population of upwards of 100,000 would be allowed
an additional member?
Sir B. HALL complained of the want of enfranchise-
ment as regarded the metropolitan boroughs. (A laugh
from the Opposition.) The noble lord. proposed to give an
additional member to the borough of Salford, and he
took—so far as ho (Sir B. Hall) could understand—a popu-
lation of 100,000 as the point about which he would give a
third member ; and on what principle was it, therefore,
that he made the metropolitan beroughs an exception to
this rule ?
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know if the noble lord
formed any calculation as to the number of each of the
new constituencies?
Mr. PHILLIMORE thought the project of the noble
lord the member for the city of London as to the repre-
sentation of minorities, was certainly a whimsical one, to
say the least of it, and he wished to know if the noble
lord would have any objection to apply the principle to
the proceedings of that house, so that out of every three
measures the majority might carry two, and the minority
one ? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He certainly disagreed
with the noble lord's proposal to repeal the act which
obliged all persons accepting place to vacate their
seats. The act, passed by Godolphin's Ministry,
was intended to provide against placemen having seats
in that house, and was described by Mr. Hallam as
being a most valuable and serviceable provision. (Hear,
hear.) The noble lord must recollect that it was part of a
system, and, though it might produce great inconveniences
at times, yet these were, without doubt, entirely balanced
by its advantages. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. TUFNELL regretted that the bill contained no pro-
vision relating to the property qualification. He had ab-
stained last year from bringing the subject before the house,
hoping that it would be included in the anticipated mea-
sure of reform, a hope which was greatly strengthened by
the fact that, in the constitutions recently granted to the
colonies, we declare that persons qualified to be electors
should be also qualified for representatives. As the noble
lord, however, had not dealt with this point in his measure,
he now gave notice that ho should himself, as early as pos-
sible, ask for leave to bring in a bill on the subject.
Mr. HUME said, that one great object which he had
always had in view in promoting reform had been to bring
within the pale of the constitution a body of men who
hitherto, he thought, had been hardly treated—the higher
class of artisans. This measure, however, so far as he saw
at present, gave no opportunity of doing that. Considering
how many of these artisans were obliged to go about from
place to place, often residing less than one year in a place,
it was scarcely to be expected that a 6/. franchise, with two
and a-half years' residence, would admit many of them ;
but, had the noble lord fixed a 51. franchise, with one year's
residence, he would probably have given many of them
votes. He was greatly pleased with the noble lord for
having persevered with the measure at the present time ;
for he was perfectly satisfied that the country was fully
capable of considering a measure of this sort calmly and
,:eliberately, even under the pressure of an impending war
Of all parts of the measure he most approved of Schedule
A. He hoped, however, that the house would never pass
that part of the bill which related to the representation of
the minority. All our institutions were grounded on the
preponderance of the majority, and such a principle as the
noble lord now sought to introduce was entirely new.
He should also have much preferred that the noble
lord should have brought down the suffrage to one
universal standard—the municipal suffrage. In conclusion,
he would ask the noble lord, whether he had made any
calculation as to what would be the number of the elec-
toral body ? At present it was, in round numbers, about
900,000, and ho wished to know whether it would be in-
creased or diminished. He would ask how it was that a
new member was to be given to Salford, while the Tower
Hamlets, with a population of 500,000 was still to have
but two?
After a few words from Mr. CAYLEY,
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said, it cannot be expected that li
I, who so much disliked the former Reform Bill, should
look upon the present one with grateful eyes. That Re-
form Bill was hailed as a revolutionary measure by every
man in the country who liked revolution, and it was re-
pelled by every man who disliked revolution, and both of
them alike called it honestly by that name. (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) I. can find no fault with the noble
lord for pursuing the course upon which he then entered,
but I confess I am again somewhat surprised., as I was
loot Sony, kw,yriuls how to iuterprei uur own language,
those who support this measure should speak of it under
the character of a measure of " Conservative progress."
It is progress, undoubtedly; progress in that revolutionary
measure which the noble lord himself so stigmatised 23
r years ago. This is a measure which is entitled, I think,
to the same character. Now, sir, not to call names with-
out stating clearly what I mean by the terms, I mean this,
—that you do sever, and did at that time sever, and are
going on severing, property from power. (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) No matter by what means, no
matter what words you use, that severance is Socialism.
Whether it be wise in the noble lord to bring this measure
on at this time I care not. Ido not believe it signifies at
all whether you discuss it in a state of war or peace,—the
measure contains in itself that which must be sooner or
later destructive. It is of no use in the world speaking of
it in other language ; it is incense offered to that party
which for 21 years the noble lord has idolised, the party
which honestly, and without disguise, declares that its in-
tention and hope is to establish shortly a democracy in this
country. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. J. BALL thought that the provision in the bill
which gave a vote to any man who had 501. in the savings
bank would remedy some of the defects complained of by
the hon. member for Montrose as likely to arise from lim-
iting the franchise to 61. He hoped that this would be
made to include every kind of savings, and particularly
assurances. He thought Ireland would have great reason
to complain if the same session which saw the application
of sound views of reform to England was allowed to pass
without their being extended to Ireland.
Lord J. RUSSELL—SeveraI members have asked me
with respect to the measures to be introduced for Scotland '1
and Ireland. All I can say is, that I will not attempt to
explain those measures at present, but that the same prin-
ciples will be applied generally to all the three countries,
and that the number of members for Ireland will remain
what it is, while the number of members for Scotland will
be three more than at present. With regard to any of
their provisions, I beg leave to decline answering any
questions at present ; the Chief Secretary for Ireland and
the Lord Advocate will at the proper time submit the re-
spective measures for the consideration of the house. The
hen. baronet the member for Marylebone has asked why
there was not a greater addition to the number of the me-
tropolitan members. Now, we propose to create Chelsea
and Kensington into a borough, to return two members,
and really, sir, I think that will be sufficient addition to
the metropolitan members. (Hear, hear.) When we
consider how much the metropolis is one place, the advan-
tage the members have of being here with their constitu-
ents near them—(a laugh)—coming down, as the hon. baro-
net often does, having had a communication with some
hundreds of his constituents in the morning to express their
views here in the evening—l really think we must agree
that the metropolis—always excepting, of course, that part
which I represent (a lau,gli)—is sufficiently well represented.
Hy right hon. friend the member for Coventry complains
of my proposal for the future disfranchisement of freemen.
All I can say with respect to that is, that in all cases where
inquiry has taken place there seems to be at least a general
opinion with respect to freemen, that they are a class
more particularly liable to be worked upon by bribery and
corruption, and I propose therefore not disfranchising
those at present existing, but to prevent any such class for
the future from coming in. Ido not wish to enter into
any details of the bill now, but rather wish that the house
should consider those details when they have the bill
before them. lam well aware that no explanations that
I could give would enable the house to form so complete
an idea of the measure as they can obtain by a careful
study of the bill itself, and I only hope that they will give
it their fullest attention. The bill has been drawn with no
reference to any party influence, but with a view solely to
obtaining the best general representation of the country.
The hon. member for West Surrey said that the whole
plan of this bill is intended to advance democracy. I differ
entirely in this from the hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
I remember perfectly well those predictions in 1831—the
King was to leave his throne—the House of Lords was to
be abolished completely—every sort of calamity was to fall
upou us. For my own part, Sir, if lam not mistaken, the
people, during the time the reformed Parliament has been
rn existence, have been more attached to the institutions
of the country, more decidedly well-affected to the throne,
than they were in times before. (Cheers.) One thing I
remember particularly. In the close of the year 1819 the
Minister came down to Parliament with six bills, which be
introduced into this house. One was to prevent public
meetings, another to gag the press, another intended to re-
strain some other popular liberty—all measures, as Lord
Castlereagh expressed it, of strict coercion, intended to
repress what he considered the growing disaffection of
the country. Let the hon. gentleman be persuaded that,
as my noble friend the Home Secretary has said in one of
his celebrated speeches, there were two kinds of re-
volutionists—one who seek by tumult and violence
directly to change the form of government, and those
who, by opposing well-considered and useful plans
of reform, impede all moderate progress, and thus
cause those violent changes which they themselves roust
deprecate. My belief is, that the present measure is what
my noble friend at the head of the Government has in an-
ticipation described it to be, " a liberal and conservative
measure." That I believe is the description which fully
agrees with its character. With regard to the question
put to me as to the numbers of the constituency, I really
have not ventured to bring any calculation before the house.
It was so difficult to calculate how many of certain classes
now have votes, and it would be impossible to tell what the
future number would be.
Mr. W. D. SEYMOUR inquired whether the two years
and a-half residence was to I.e in the same house or in the
same borough ?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—In the same borough, but not ne-
cessarily in the same house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that, on the whole, the
bill, with some amendments, would be a very excellent
measure. The next thing the noble lord had to do was to
convince the country that he and his Government were in
earnest, and that they were determined to pass a bill to
improve the representation of the people. They must on no
account listen to the evil counsels with which he was, no
doubt, beset—to postpone the discussion of this measure
until the question of war or peace was decided, or the war
ended. But who could tell when a European war each as
we were now threatened with would end ? Suppose the

measure had been more mid, would hon. gentlemen
opposite have supported it ' What did they settle to
do with the noble lord's neasure in 1852, which was
really thought no%worth discussing by the Liberal party?
He perceived from the noble ord's proposal that several of
the Whig boroughs, left untouched by the Reform
Bill of 1831 and 1832, were proposed now to be disfran-
chised. It was said the Reform Bill of 1831 and
1832 was corrupt, because Caine was one of the bo-
roughs left in by it, but now it was proposed to
disfranchise Calne, as well as Richmond, in Yorkshire,
Arundel, and other Whig loroug,hs. This he thought was
a fact speaking well for tie intention of Government.
(Hear.) He hoped there would be no attempt to postpone
the measure, but that Government would let it take its
chance in that house, and :rust the rest to the people of
this country. He held in his hand a list of gentlemen
who met at Lord Derby's in 1852, after the " little Reform
Bill" was introduced by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell).
Upwards of 100 were present; and he had now before him
a list of all their names. laugh.) He would not, how-
ever, read the names, as Ihe house was well enabled to
guess who would be there—namely, the friends of the right
hon. gentlemen who by acme accident got into office the
year before last. (Laughter.) With regard to that list,
he would read a paragraph accompanying it—" At a meet-
ing held at Lord Derby's house yesterday, the policy to be
pursued by the Protectionists with respect to the Reform
Bill was discussed, and it vas unanimously determined to
oppose the second reading of the bill." That was just
what the other side proposed to do now, and the more so
as they had now an impending war thrown into the scale
to assist them. (Laughtee.) If they opposed the bill of
1852, of course they would oppose the larger bill now pro-
posed. (Laughter.) But all the noble lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) had to do was to convince the country he was in ear-
nest, and to render the measure popular in the country
depended upon how wide the noble lord opened the door
to the industrial classes of the community. (Cheers.) He
thought the noble lord had not opened that door wide
enough. The two years sad a-half residence proposed by
the noble lord would in sane cases be in effect three years
and a-half, inasmuch as a man might not take up his resi-
dence until just before the registration took place, and,
consequently, his claim could not be considered until a
year had elapsed. It would be seen, then, that this
clause would exclude a large number from the posses-
sion of the franchise. Ile approved of the proposal to
extend the number of metropolitan members, and he
hoped the noble lord (Lord John Russell) would receive,
if he was in earnest, the Btpport of the country. The noble
lord might rest assured that he must depend upon that
support and upon the exertions of Government to give
effect to that justice to the working classes which he (Mr.
Duncombe) maintained had been much too long withheld.
(Cheers.)
Mr. E. BALL could not allow the debate to close with-
out expressing his gratitude to the noble lord the member
for London for his proposal to give the London University
the right of being represented in the House of Commons.
He thought the representation of the country could not
be better advanced than by conferring the franchise upon
the educated portion of the community, and, on behalf of
the University of London, he begged to thank the noble
lord for the privilege he proposed to confer upon it.
Mr. HEYWOOD observed that in the county of Lan-
caster the division of the 101. householders would about
double the number of electors, and at the same time it
would, of course, doable the expense of elections, as twice
the number of electors would have to be brought to the poll
upon each occasion.
Mr. MURROUGH complained that in the proposal of
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) no step was taken to dis-
pense with the property qualification of members. After
instancing the names of several illustrious statesmen and
authors who had been members of that house in former
years, he asked if there were not now, upon both sides of
the house, hon. members who had served their country
with ability to the publii and honour to themselves, who,
on the threshold of theiriolitical career, could by no chance
have possessed the property qualification ? The effect of
the property qualification was frequently to unseat the
duly elected representative of the people, and to defraud a
constituency of its franchise and privileges. Without
dwelling upon the character of a law which required a man
to hold a seat in the House of Commons upon no better
recommendation than the adequacy of his patrimony, he
contended that the electors themselves were treated with
the grossest injustice by such a provision, inasmuch as
they selected the man they deemed the best fitted to re-
present them, and none but the most venal could form
an opinion of the adequacy of his means. In many cases
the property qualification acted in this way,—the man
who was chosen by the electors as the advocate of popular
rights, after possessing his seat for a few weeks, found him-
self ousted by an election committee, while a man whose
principles were disapproved by the electors, and who pos-
sessed neither their esteem nor respect, stepped into the
seat as their chosen representative. Unless the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) made a provision in the bill to remedy
the defect of which he (Mr. Murrough) complained, he
should feel it his duty to propose the introduction of such
a clause. Though it might be said that at present no agi-
tation was going forward upon this subject, he was con-
vinced that the people of this country would be greatly
disappointed unless it was brought forward, and he felt
that it would be playing a most dangerous game indeed to
teach the people of England that they were to expect no-
thing save that which resulted from a successful agitation.
Mr. MAGUIRE thought that in one feature the bill pro-
posed by the noble lord the member for London applied as
much to Ireland as to England, and he begged the attention
of the house while he referred to it for a moment. The
feature in the scheme of the noble lord to which he alluded
was sufficient to alarm both countries, but was most preg-
nant with danger as regarded Ireland. He referred to the
repeal of that provision which compelled a member taking
office under Government to go before his constituents be-
fore he could again enter Parliament. To show how the
repeal of that statute was fraught with danger even to Ire-
land, he alluded to a meeting at Dublin of 60 members of
Parliament, elected by their constituents at great sacrifice,
who at that meeting made a solemn declaration binding
themselves to a certain line of Polley sanctioned by the
great mass of the Irish people. Since tlyst, period several
of those gentlemen bad accepted office under Government,
and on doing so, under the statute ab present existing,
they were compelled to vacate their seatsand go before their
constituents for re-election. But if the measure proposed
by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) passed, and the pro-
vision to which he referred existed no longer, what check
would there be against corruption ? A. hundred members
might bind themselves to a particular policy, but if the
existing check against corruption were done away with,
every man of easy virtue would take advantage of it, sell
himself to the Government, and abandon his constituents.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He considered that there
could not be two characters more distinct than the inde-
pendent member of Parliament and the servant of Govern
meat, and he should do his utmost to oppose the repeal of
what he believed to be a most sanitary check upon cor-
ruption and treachery.
The SPEAKER then put the question, and leave was
given to introduce both bills, which were accordingly read
a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the
13th of March.
LAND FOR CHURCH BUILDING.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved for, and obtained leave
to bring in a bill to facilitate the apportionment of the
rent, when parts of lands on lease are taken for the pur-
poses of the Church Building Acts.
CHARGE OF CORRUPTION AGAINST IRISH
MEMBERS.—COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.

Mr. I. BUTT rose to move that the committee of privi-
leges, which the house, upon his motion, had decided to
appoint, to consider certain allegations which had appeared
in the Times newspaper, should consist of 20 members. He
was not aware whether he was to anticipate any opposition
to the nomination of the committee, and for the present
would confine himself to a brief statement of the reasons
which had induced him to think that the number which
he had mentioned was that which ho ought to propose.
The house would remember that, when he brought for-
ward his motion, he had referred to a precedent of the
year 1834, as the only one which he co-ald find to justify
the course proposed. (Hear, hear, hear.) In a matter
of this nature, involving such considerations as those which
were involved here, he had thought it better to conform
to precedent as far as possible. The resolutions, there-
fore, which he had moved had been copied, word for
word, from the resolutions of 1834. And finding that the
committee then nominated had consisted of twenty mem-
bers, that several distinguished members of the house had
served upon it, and that the late Sir R. Peel, who had been
one of them, had thus testified, as he was bound to assume,
his approval of twenty as the proper number, he had
thought it desirable that that should be the number now.
Mr. HUME said there was a rule of the house that no
committee should consist of more than fifteen members,
unless there were some special public reason for appointing
a larger number. He thought that no such reason existed
in the present case, and he should certainly object to so
numerous a committee as that which was now proposed.
He had rather that the number should be limited to five.
Sir G. GREY agreed with his hon. friend the member
for Montrose. A great change had taken place in the prac-
tice of the hon:e since the precedents to which the hon.
and learned gentleman the member for Youghal had re-
ferred. At that time there was no limit as to number,
and the practice of appointing small committees in the na-
ture of judicial committees had not then been adopted.
He thought it improper, in a case of this kind, to appoint
even no large a number as fifteen. The charges which had
been made were such as ought to be judicially and carefully
inquired into. (Hear, hear.) He was sure that the only
wish of the hon. gentleman opposite was to have a tho-
rough investigation, but he had not been long in the house
and had not had an opportunity of watching, as other
hon. members had, the changes which had taken place in
its practice. It was for this reason that he now called his
attention to the fact, that what was in accordance with
precedent iu the year 1834, would be contrary to all recent
precedent if it were adopted now.
Mr. LUCAS said the mere appointment of a committee
was not sufficient to effect the object which the hon. and
learned gentleman had in view. It had been decided that
the honour of the house required that the complaints
which had been made should be subjected to a full and
searching investigation. Those complaints included not
only the specific facts mentioned by Mr. Kelly and Dr.
Gray, but the general charge made against one hundred
members of that house by the article in the Times newspa-
per. (Hear.) If that charge were true, multiplied offences
had been committed of a very secret character, and such as
were very difficult of investigation. What course had the
house generally adopted when inquiring into secret offences
of that kind ? If they wished to inquiry into allegations
of bribery—in reference, for instance, to such a borough
as St. Albans—they took care, concurrently with the ap-
pointment of a committee or a commission, to pass an act
of indemnity. (Hear, hear.) If they wished to get rid of
the corruption complained of by this article, they must
adopt the same course, and must place the witnesses who
might be able and willing to give evidence before the com-
mittee in a situation to do so without risk to themselves.
(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that any party
wished to smuggle up the case ; but their own conduct in
other instances was the best proof that a measure for the
protection of witnesses must be passed, in order that those
witnesses might be forthcoming. He had an additional
reason for making this suggestion to the house, in some-
thing which had come to his knowledge since the former
discussion on this subject. He had certain newspapers
brought under his notice which had at first led him to ap-
prehend that he might possibly have done some injustice to
that class of Irish representatives of whom he had expressed
an unfavourable opinion ; for he had seen in the columns
of those newspapers that Government appointments were
"legally saleable," and that the Times itself had been a
party to such transactions. (Hear, hear.) He had copied
from that journal certain advertisements which seemed to
him to deserve the attention of the house, if they honestly
wished to inquire into the charge which bad been made,
that offices were actually sold. (Hear, hear.) In the Times
of the 11th January this advertisement appeared :
" Douceur-2001. will be paid at once to any lady or gen-
tleman who will legally procure for the advertiser (a young
man of business habits, and who writes well—(laughter)—
a permanent Government situation worth 2001. per annum.
The strictest secrecy will be observed in the matter.—Ad-
dress L. S. D., Post-office, Cork." (Laughter.) On the 28th
ofJanuary there appeared, among others, an advertisement

offering " a docour of 1001. for five years, for a Government
or other situation, legally seleable, of not less than
3001. per annum, by a gentleman aged 43, who with-
draws from one of the liberal professions; strictest secrecy
may be relied on, and security, if required, in leasehold
property—Address, J.M.,l2lEdgeware-road,Paddington.'
oAffneortehed ir
011 vfeorrt is easmi t eunat, ti which
aanpyp e
oa rf eftl
hoen tGhoev4etrli of
nine Feb., n
t or
public offices, as messenger, light porter, or gatekeeper ;
and the Civil Service Gazette of the 28th Jan. contained
an offer of 5001. cash for a permanent public appointment,
with a yearly salary of from 2501, to 3001. (Hear.) He had
been curious to see whether there were any advertisements
offering places for sale. He had found one in which the
advertiser professed to be able to procure a situation of
ginthaisns—t
a(
tLe ad u g t e r
imme-
diately afterwards, that the duties were " from ten until
I—but.
linacyoueapr"
witho establishedthe fact,whwhich
business
was "
three," he must say that this looked very like an offer to
dispose of a Government situation. (Laughter.) He had
been anxious also to see whether there was any difference
in the number of these advertisements when Parliament
was up and when it was in session. (Hear.) He had ascer-
tained that during the whole month of January the Times
contained 12 such advertisements; and in the first week of
Feb. no fewer than 15. Su that they had, in fact, consider-
ably increased after the meeting of Parliament. (Hear.)
According to " Russell on Crimes," the buying and selling
of offices was an offence indictable at common law, and by
the 49th of Geo. 111. the publication of any advertisement
containing proposal' for that purpose made the party pub-
lishing liable to a penalty of 501. (Hear.) Within one week
from the commencement of the session the Times had
brought itself, in 15 instances, within the spirit of that
enactment. Nobody could doubt, after reading these ad-
vertisements, that the buying and selling of offices did
take place. The fact was put before the public in the
newspapers in the most glaring and offensive form ; and the
disgraceful character of the transaction was attested by the
stipulation made, in every instance. that strict secrecy was
to be observed. (Hear.) They could not hope, therefore,
to obtain the information which they sought, without the
act of indemnity which he had suggested; and he ear-
nestly appealed to the noble lord opposite to state whether
he would, by bringing forward such a measure, take the
only step which could make the inquiry effective.
Mr. GOULBURN supported the view of Sir Geo. Grey
as to the propriety of having a small committee, of which
there should be no quorum, so that all the members would
bo appointed under a solemn obligation to listen to all the
evidence, and to attend from day to day until the charges
made, and which affected the honour of members of that
house, should be supported or disproved They had already
ample powers to indemnify any witness in respect of any
statement before a committee of that house which might
otherwise subject him to a prosecution, without waiting
for the measure which the hon. gentleman opposite pro-
posed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON was also of opinion that any com-
mittee which might be appointed to investigate this mat-
ter should sit as a judicial committee—that no quorum
should be appointed—and that every member should at-
tend every sitting. In order to attain this end, 20 would
be an inconveniently large number. In a case somewhat
analogous, in which the late Mr. O'Connell was concerned
relating to the Carlow election, the number of the com-
mittee was 11 ; and in another case, in the year 1835, the
number was 15. Neither of these cases, however, was pot
as a case of " privilege," and he wished to ask the Speaker
whether the fact of this being so put obliged them to revert
to the precedent of 1834?
Lord H. VANE trusted the committee would not be
constituted like one upon which he had served some years
ago. In that case, a certain number of members had been
appointed by the house, but all the members represented
counties, and some others had the right of attending when
they pleased.
The SPEAKER said the committee to which the noble
lord had alluded was a standing committee, appointed at
the commencement of every session. It was called the
committee of privileges, and was composed of a certain
number of gentlemen nominated by the house, with all the
members representing counties and gentlemen of the long
robe, making up almost as many members as the house
itself. It had, however, very often happened of late years
that matters had been referred, not to the committee of
privileges, but to a committee of privileges, which was a
select committee nominated by the house. In 1834 it was
the practice to constitute committees of as many as twenty
members, or even more ; but a standing order had since
limited the number to 15, and still more recently it had
been the practice to appoint to all committees of a judicial
character a very small number of members, of whom every
one was required to be present at every sitting. He thought
this case would fall quite within that pra Mice. (Hear.)
Mr.E.DENISON- suggestedthat, consulting precedence,
they would reduce the number of the committee to five,
and recommended, further, that the committee of five
should be nominated, likewise, in accordance with the pre-
cedent, by the committee of selection.
Mr. HILDYARI) contended that the house could not
indemnify a witness who had violated the law of the land
—(hear, hear) -a doctrine which he felt bound absolutely
to deny, lest the country should suppose they had any such
privilege. The witness, indeed, might be able to decline
criminating himself, and might, when asked if he hoe, been
guilty of trafficking in office, decline answering a question
his answer to which would subject him to punishment ; but
the house could not screen one who had expressly broken
the law of the land.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought this question was being ar-
gued on what he should call Red Tape principles. Admit-
ting the desirability of their having a committee, it was to
the ability, not to the number, of those upon it that the
house should look. (Hear.) He asked why, if they were
disposed to have a real and searching inquiry, they sh neld
not have a commission instead of a committee? And why
not pass a bill of indemnity. If the truth was that mem-
bers ha •I disposed of patronage, and that the Government
had had cognizance of such feelings, then there should be
the fullest inquiry ; and, with a view to the fullest in-
quiry, there should issue a commission. This was the only
way in which the persons on whom this charge would be
thrown could be freed from suripicion. Ho said, on the
part of the Irish members—" We dare you now to a full
and ample inquiry." The responsibility would be on the
Government, not on members, if that inquiry did not as-
sume the form most likely to arrive at the truth.
Mr. BUTT observed that there were two propositions
before the house. One that this committee should be re-
duced in number, another that its appointment should be
referred to the committee of selection. He had no wish but
that this inquiry should be as full as possible, and that it
should be conducted in such a way that the people both of
England and Ireland would consider it to have been so. It
would not, he said, be of any use to appoint five gentlemen
unless their names were such as would give satisfaction ;
and, he must say, on this question of reduction, that he
would not wish the committee brought below 11, and would
greatly prefer its being composed of 15. The house must
observe that it contained within itself a section, opposing
the Government, who were the accusers in this case—(hear,
hear, and no, no)—and who made this accusation against
another section of Irish members. Would they exclude
the accusers from the committee, and, if they did so would
they satisfy the Irish people ? Would they leave the ac-
cused undefended in the committee, and, if they did so,
would they be acting fairly towards them? They must
have enough gentlemen of character and position on the
committee to give satisfaction as the result of their in-
quiries; and they must remember that the appoint-
ment of a small commission would certainly subject
it to suspicion. As to the other suggestion—the
appointment of this committee by the committee of
selection—he wholly rejected it, considering that the
house would be abdicating its highest functions in con-
senting to such an arrangement. So convinced was he of
e oa sNt
No
Et the
Ln uwmabse rn oo ft the
aware
w ac
roem
tmhiattt eaem;obnit
this, that if the committee ho asked for was not to be
chosen by the house itself, then it became a proceeding in
recommendedobje electingtio annt:yo faunrtyitihefeoarr:opotrioann y
o fe responsibility.x
tthe
en t
which he could take no further part. He was perfectly
readym. tsoog
ivNe wayo,
g
natheethloridshofmceoimnbinergstoonahriisghstidceonocfluthsieonho. uHseetnaheors
if it were not to be appointed by the house itself, ho must
All they desired was the best, the surest,ofsuggestionn q uandr inquiry whatsoever.
thewtethh
eacalatti wasrrs
noet ceehastventeerl sy:eyt
ws hhooul led t br
ue
tah boifl I
t ho fi
s indemnitymatter and gasno uterde,:riasugthietnutph,epreerfweoeutllyd
be nothing to prevent there having the truth, and the
and satisfactorily, one way or the other. The hon. member
(Mr. Lucas) would then be able to substantiate the accusa-
tions made in his extraordinary speech the other night—
such a speech as he (Mr. J. O'Connell) though he had been
some seventeen years in Parliament, had never heard be-
fore. The hon. member had then stated that there was no
doubt whatever that the grossest and most corrupt prac-
tices had prevailed among Irish members ; and he supple-
mented that statement with the declaration that he could
not and would not prove it. (Hear.) By this bill of in-
demnity asked for, it would be shown whether the hon.
member's charges were capable of proof or not ; for by its
operation there would be no impediment to their being
proved, except their being false. The hon. gentleman
(3lr. J. O'Connell) concluded by requesting that his name
might bo withdrawn from the committee on the ground
that he had had personal conflicts with some of the gentle-
men who must be examined in this inquiry.
Colonel DUNNE said that Irishmen were accustomed
to libel in the Times, and that he never recollected any
o; 'genic changes having relation to that country which had
not been pr. ceded by a skim mishing line of libel in that
paper. The hon. member (Mr. Butt), however, had con-
fined himself to two assertions made in Ireland ; and
those charges to which he had alluded were such that the
tribune before which they were investigated should be
judicial. They should have a commission ; and the Go-
vernment—which, if there had been corruption among
Irish members, must have been a party to it -should be
willing to grant a commission. He believed that the re-
sult of due inquiry would be a contradiction of these
charges, but ho thought the Government would be to
blame if they were not fully investigated. Ho regretted
that the leader of the house was not present to speak on
this point for the Government.
Sir J. YOUNG explained Lord J. Russell's absence by
the fatigue incident to his long speech on the Reform mea-
sure he had brought in that evening. As regarded the
proposal for an indemnity bill was not needed. The house
had itself ample power to protect the witnesses brought
before it. Tho sole question was as to the number of
which this committee should consist ; there was no ques-
tion as to whether the nomination should be by the com-
mittee of selection. As to the number, it had, in the
recent practice of the house, been reduced, with great
advantage, from the larger to the smaller number. The
number was the only question.
In reply to Mr. P fIILLIMORE,
Sir J. YOUNG repeated that the house had ample
power to protect its witnesses.
Mr. ROEBUCK doubted this doctrine. If he indicted
a man who had confessed before a committee of the house
that he had trafficked in the sale of office, he suspected the
house could not interfere to shield that man, or to protect
him from legal consequences.
Mr. BUTT was willing to withdraw his motion for a
committee of twenty members, substituting as his num-
ber, fifteen—which was agreed to. Hethen gave notice of
the nomination of a committee of that number this day.
The house adjourned at half-past nine.

THE COAL TAX.—Yesterday an interesting return to
the House of Commons was printed respecting the coal
tax. It appears that the amount of local or municipal
dues collected on the importation of coals or coke into
the several ports of the United Kingdom was, in 1851,
243.2131. lls. 9d., and in 1852, 240,577/. 3s. ld. The
taxes on the exportation of coals exported in 1851 was
48,4831. 12s. 10d., and in 1852, 47,291/. 19s. 2d. The
tax on coals and coke brought by railway into the ports
of the United Kingdom was 17,533/. 4s. 7d. in 1851,
and 26,5161. 16s. sd. in 1852.
DEPARTURES FOR AUSTRALIA.—The departures from
London for the Australian colonies during the part week
show a decrease. They have comprised altogether four
vessels—three to Port Philip, with an aggregate burden
of 1,331 tons, and one to Sydney of 946 tons. Their
total capacity. was consequently 2;277 tons. Thka rates
of freight exhibit a further tendency to decline. 6