The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-02 00:00:00

speech. We hear none of the Reformers from Birmingham, ,
and elsewhere coming forward with the schemes about I
which they have been agitating the country, and which cer-
tainly go far beyond that of the noble lord. Twenty-eight
years have elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, and
when the noble lord abandoned the doctrine of finality to
which he so obstinately clung, I think we had reason to ex-

pect an extension of the franchise which would have con-
"erred electoral privileges on the working classes generally.
What has happened within the last few years ? In 1852 the
noble lord brought in a bad Bill, to which nobody listened.
In 1854 he brought in another Bill, which was ten times
better than the ono he had just submitted. The noble lord,
therefore, is not so good a Reformer now as he was six
years ago. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) The Bill of 1854
proposed wholly to disfranchise 19 rotten and nomination
boroughs, and it also took one member from 33 other bo-
roughs. (Hear, hear.) We have now a mildlneasure, by
which one member is taken from 25 boroughs,. and not a
single word is said about disfranchisement. (Hear.) Calne
and other pocket boroughs are not included in the scheme,
and yet formerly the noble lord's principles were that as
long as nomination boroughs existed the seeds of a further
and a necessary reform would remain sown. (Hear, hear.)
Will not nomination boroughs be left after the passing of
this Bill? Of course they will, and the noble lord's object
mist therefore be to have the question of Reform mooted
every session in this House. (Hear, hear.) We want a
lodger franchise. (Hear, bear.) It is totally impossible
that a Bill which adds only 200,000 voters to the borough
constituencies can satisfy the working classes of this coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) What was the promise—l will say the
compact—made with these men in 1831-2 ? They were dis-
appointed then because they were excluded from the fran-
chise, and they were told, "Keep quiet; your time will
come, and we shall then give votes to the working classes."
Depending on this promise, they rallied round the Reformers
of 1831-2 for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the
Bill," and have been waiting patiently ever since for some-
thing to be done in their behalf. Bat what will this Lill
do for them? I remember that Lord Althorp, who was then
the leader of this House, being present at a dinner
given by Sir Francis Burdett on the introduction of
the Reform Bill, said, "To tell you the truth, I think
this Bill but a very poor concern—(laughter)—and
the only thing which makes me regard it more favourably
is that when the bill was settled by the Cabinet we sent a
copy of it to Lord John Russell and Lord Stanley" (now
Lord Derby), who were not then members of the Cabinet.
['Lord John Russell was understood to make a gesture of
dissent.] Does the noble lord mean to say he was a mem-
ber of the Cabinet ? (Laughter.) I don't know whether
my right hon. friend (Mr. E. Ellice) was not there, and if
so he will remember the circumstance. "The only thing,"
added Lord Althorp, "which gives me hopes of the bill is
that when Stanley saw it he wrote to me and said, ' What
a pretty kick-up you are going to make !' " (Laughter.)
And when he heard that, Lord Althorp did think some-
thing of the bill. Mr. Stinley was quite right ; there was
a pretty kick-up. We had 100,000 men threatening us from
Birmingham ; there was a run upon the bank for gold ;
there were fires in different parts of the country; a black
flag was hoisted from the steeples of the Glasgow churches;
and, amid these scenes, the measure was carried. There
will be no kicking against this bill, I am sure. (Laughter.)
Then, I ask, is this intended to be final, or are we to in-
troduce improvements in it in a few years? There is cer-
tainly one great blemish in it. Not one word has been said
by the, noble lord about registration. One great complaint
now is the difficulty of registration. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord said the payment of poosirates is to be the con-
dition of registration, but I say that the payment of no rate
or tax ought to be a condition of registration. (Hear,
hear.) Why, at present it sometimes takes two years be-
fore a man can get on the register, and I say we ought to
have a registration every quarter. (Hear, hear.) As to the
proposed redistribution of seats, it is impossible to call
that anything like a reform. Another blemish in this
scheme is, that no notice is taken of lodgers. There
are men paying £lO or £l5 a-year rent, but living in lodg-
ings ; they have, and are to have, no vote ; these men are
respectable mechanics, and educated men, who are quite fit
for the franchise. In the metropolis you cannot find such a
thing as a£6 house. A house of £2O or £3O is occupied by
two or three families, and the head of each of them requires
to have the franchise. If you do not give it to them, they
will be discontented, and agitation will go on from year to
year. What the decision of Parliament will be as to this
measure I cannot say, but I am sure, whether it be its adop-
tion or rejection, it will be a matter of perfect indifference
to the great body of the people.
Mr. SLANEY thought the bill would be hailed by all
thinking men as a very great boos to the people of England.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY asked whether the noble lord could
state the maximum number of electors that would be added
to the county constituencies ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—In reply to the question of the
right hon. member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wal-
pole), 1 have to say that we do not propose any alteration as
to poor-rates, but the tenant will be obliged to pay them as
at present, and have the same facilities for placing himself
on the register as at present. In answer to the question
just asked, I do not think we should be justified in saying
what would be the number of £lO voters in counties. We
have returns, but only of those rated between £lO and £5O,
which show a total of 381,000 in England, and 415,000 in
England and Wales, but I do not think that is quite accu-
rate, because it comprehends all freeholders who are rated
at £lO and upwards. An hon. gentleman has asked whe-
ther the passing of this measure would render necessary a
dissolution of Parliament.
Major EDWARDS—This year. .
Lord J. RUSSELL—What the bill proposes is, that
the November registration claims shall be made under the
franchises conferred by this measure. When the registra-
tion is complete, it will be competent, of course, for the
Crown to dissolve the present Parliament, and to summon a

new one.
Mr. BRIGHT, in consequence of what had just fallen
from the noble lord, wished to know whether any change
was intended in respect of the Compound Householders Act
passed a few years since ? That act gave the franchise to the
tenant, whose landlord paid the rates, and he wished to know
whether it would be applicable to those who would be enfran-
chised under this bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL—We propose to make no change at
all.

Mr. BRIGHT thought the noble lord had said there
would be a change. He hoped he had been mistaken, for a
departure from the present arrangement in that respect
would falsify all the promises that had been held out._
Mr. ROEBUCK remarked that among the towns which
were to receive an additional member each was Leeds, but
not Sheffield. (A laugh). He only wished to call the noble
lord's attention to the fact that Sheffield had at present a
larger constituency than Leeds. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM viewed with alarm one striking cha-
racteristic of the bill, and that was the redistribution of the
seats to be taken away. He entertained grave doubts whe-
ther the Liberal party would gain by the transfer of mem-
bers from small boroughs to counties.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
THE REFORM BILL FOR IRELAND.
Mr. CARDWELL—I rise, Sir, to state the nature of the
changes which the Government propose to make with regard
to the Parliamentary representation of Ireland. I shall do
so with great brevity, and I shall notenter into questions of
argument, but state as shortly and as well as I can the effect
which those changes will have on the constituency of Ireland.
Although we adopt the same views for Ireland which my
noble friend has laid down for England, the house is well
aware that the law whichregulates the qualification of elec-
tors in Ireland is framed on a different model from that of
Great Britain. The act passed in 1850, which put an end
to many controversies of long standing, and which has
given, I believe, general satisfaction in its working, is the
basis of the law which is intended to operate in Ireland ;
and'that tenement valuation, which is now making progress
towards completion, it is proposed to apply to the consti-
tuency in Ireland ; since Ireland enjoys, in that respect, an
advantage which Great Britain does not enjoy, giving her
afrnede
applyingdion freedom
elflrtigioomtbillee those difficulties which would be found in
valuation.ul ol e h
of the kingdom
it iaproposed
an un iftor mt,o
dclear,oin
sffilofirxreealisatnndidhlseoi
us,
qualificationbtasontid:
uinte bchangecomrto
uit engthprovision of
atant
cgthet
alh2nlaeeac
ntbdeoi
fntolgBsqualificationwhichproposed,substitute
f
change
change will
we should be desirous to know what effect
produce on the county and on the borough constituencies.
At present, in Ireland, upon the past registration, the coun-
ties collectively have a constituency of 174,000. If we were
to add to that constituency all those who are on the rate-
books at from £l2 to £lO, the total addition, I think, would be
40,126. But ifyou apply to that the correction which I think
will be found to be a right and necessary correction, foe the
purpose of deducting the females, minors, double °coupe_
tions,lbsences; and other cases, so as to bring the number
of ratepayers clown to the number at which the constituency
Will be, you will then have an increase of 30,000, making
on the whole, therefore, a constituency of 204,000. Then
with regard to the boroUghs, adopting the same rule, you
have in the present boroughs a constituency of 30,700, and
the first addition of ratepayers would be 7,557; but making
the corresponding correction of the returns, the number
would be 6,655, making up a total in the present counties
and boroughs of 240,000. That is the way in which t 1 e
£lO and £6 franchises will operate in boroughs and coun-
ties. On this part of the subject there is a change of no
great magnitude, .perhaps, which the Government think it
right to snake in the bormeeh franchises. At the time of ihc
Reform Bill there was a different law applicable to freemen
in England and Ireland, and it is proposed that the law re-
garding freemen in this country shall come into operation
in Ireland. With regard to any change in the different
constituencies of Ireland I will now explain the views of the
Government. Ireland is a country not generally inhabited
in large towns. A much smaller proportion of the whole
population of Ireland reside in towns than if you take Enz-
Lind or Scotland. At pre.tent 32 Irish counties return 61
members, 33 boroughs return 39 members, and one univ--T-
-pity returns two members. giving a total of 105 members.
Now, applying to Ireland therule whiehhas been laiddoa n
with regard to England namely, that no town with less
that 7,000 inhabitants shall return two members to this
house,o m. I
you
There
not find in Ireland a single borough to dis-
franchise.
members v
rink eils‘honvo,ye in Ireland a single borough return-
ing two pop,ulwahtilo.enh
ifsaltlhsevsemryalmi9uste,hasthtohre
poput t
of m:
last census had a eatfootion very nearly!approachr ng 29,000.
There are therefore no means of obtainmg additional seats
to dispose of by apply-ins- to Ireland the rule that has hem

plied to Engl

a _ __,land, nor, on the other hand, are those bo-
rOughs of the size of Birkenhead and. Staleybridge which
have no representative. But there are two constitu-
encies in Ireland, one a county and the other a city con-
stituency, which, in point of population, of property, and
in the number of electors, stand entirely apart from the other
counties and the other cities. Those are the great con-
stituencies of Cork and the city of Dublin. We propose that
there should be for the county of Cork and for the city of
Dublin three members each, obtaining seats from the four
in England which by act of Parliament are now unappro-
priated. Two of these seats will be given to Ireland for the
purpose of giving to the great county of Cork and the city
of Dublin one additional member each, making three mem-
bers for each of those constituencies. The claim of the
Queen's university to have a member naturally arose for
consideration when the claim of the London University was
allowed, and I should have felt extremely glad if it had been
in my power to ask the house to express its approbation of
the Queen's University in Ireland, by assigning to it a re-
presentative in this house. I hope the day will come, and
that it will not be many years before it comes, when Parlia-
ment will think it right to give the Queen's University in
Ireland a representative in this house, but at the present
time, looking to the small number of years during which
the university has been established, and what is the govern-
ing consideration at present, namely, the number of its
graduates, I am afraid it would not be right to make any
such proposal now. The total number of graduates being
only 260, I think it impossible at the present moment to give
a member to that university. There is another subject con-
nected with Ireland on which we propose to legislate in the
present bill. I had the honour to-night to present a petition
signed by a large portion of the peers of Ireland, who com-
plain of the position in which they stand under the clause of
the Act of Union, which defines their legal position. They
ask why, if it is thought constitutionally right that it should
be open to them to represent constituencies in Great Britain,
with which probably, they have less natural connexion than
with the constituencies of their own country, they should
be shut out by. express enactment from representing their
friends and neighbours with whom their interests are asso-
ciated. We propose to remove that disqualification.
(Hear, hear.) We propose to enable them to stand towards
their friends and neighbours, the constituencies of Ireland,
in that relation in which they now stand to the constituen-
cies of _England. With regard to matters of a purely
administrative character—l speak of the time occupied
in county elections, and polling-places, and matters of
that kind, tending to diminish the expense and excite-
ment connected with contested elections—those mat-
ters are regulated by a different act of Parliament,
and therefore I do not propose in this bill to make any alte-
ration whatever on that subject. What therefore is pro-
posed on the part of Ireland is shortly this—to make the
county franchise £lO, and the borough franchise £6, and to
give to the great county of Cork a third member, and to
the city of Dublin a third member, drawn from what were
formerly seats in England, and to remove the disqualifica-
tion now operating on Irish peers ; and I trust that by this
measure we shall give satisfaction to the people of Ireland,
and increase the value and efficiency of the representation
of that part of the kingdom.
Mr. WHITESIDE said this would be the fifth reform
bill they had had for Ireland. When the Union was carried
200 seats were abolished and some boroughs bought up. In
1827 Sir R. Peel thought it right to change the old fran-
chise. He changed the old county franchise into a £lO
freehold franchise. They then had the Reform Bill 441832,
and then the bill proposed by the friends of the right hon.
gentleman, which gave a £l2 occupation franchise for coun-
ties and LS for boroughs. He thought the right hon. gen-
tleman had given no reason why that law should be changed
now. One thing bad escaped the atteidion of the right
hon. gentleman. The county of Cork was divided; there
was a west and an east riding. He thought the right hon.
member fell into an error in giving a third member for the
whole county, and he supposed that he meant to give the
additional member to the west riding.
Mr. COGAN asked whether there was to be any disfran-
chisement of the freemen, or whether those who were already
possessed of the franchise would be allowed to keep it. He
believed that at present in the city of Dublin that franchise
acted most injuriously. Ho must express a feeling of sur-
prise at the proposition to admit Irish peers as members of
that house. The Irish peers had a right to elect represen-
tative peers to sit in the other house of Parliament, and if
in addition to that they could sit in this house, they would
have a great deal of power. He would merely throw out
the suspicion whisk he entertained, and wait for the ex-
pression of the country's opinion. Another question
which he wished to ask the right honourable gentleman
was, at what time the measure would probably come into
operation ? He understood that there must be a registra-
tion of voters under the bill, and that registration would
probably take place somewhere about next November.
Would the voters then placed upon the list have to wait six
months before they could exercise their franchise ?
Mr. DAWSON wished to know whether the qualifica-
tion was to be a rating or an occupation one ?
Mr. VANCE wished to contradict, in the most unquali-
fied terms, the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that
the freeman franchise had a most injurious effect upon the
representation of Ireland. He was perfectly sure that the
Protestant freemen of Dublin, and ho might say of Cork
also, had always exercised their franchise for the benefit of
their country. (Cheers and laughter.) No case of corrup-
tion Lad been made out against them for the last quarter of
a century. (Cries of oh.) He regretted as well as his hon.
and learned friend (Mr. Whiteside) that the right hon.
gentleman should have been advised to make any change
in the first franchise after the number of Reform Bills that
they had already had for that country, and he did not de-
spair of inducing him, after discussion, to retrace his
steps.

Mr. SCULLY, following the example of the hon. mem-
ber for Middlesex, begged to return thanks to the right
hon. gentleman for the additional member which he pro-
posed to give to Cork, for he (Mr. Scully) was now the sole
representative. He returned thanks, however, for the
county, and not for himself, because the additional seat
would only increase his chances of failure at every subse-
quent election. (Laughter.)
Mr. BLACK (who was received with laughter, and cries
of wait I) said that as hon. gentlemen from the sister coun-
try seemed to object to have two additional seats which had
formerly belonged to England given to Ireland, ho should
be happy to accept them for Scotland, which had not got
quite her fair share of the representation. (Laughter and
cheers.)
Mr. LONGFIELD expressed his surprise at the proposi-
tion for removing the disqualification from Irish peers.
What petition from any part of the United Kingdom, " nu-
merously and respectably signed," which was now the usual
formula for all petitions, had been presented asking for such
an alteration ? He could not but regard the proposal as a
" fancy franchise," and as altogether uncalled for.
Colonel GREVILLE considered the proposal to give this
new privilege to Irish peers an extraordinary one. In Ire-
land a £lO county franchise was equivalent to a £l2 fran-
chise in England, and a £6 franchiseto a £7 10s. franchise.
Although, therefore, there was a nominal equality between
the two franchises, there was not a real one. (Hear.)
Lord R. CECIL said he had listened in vain for the
reasons which had induced the right hon. gentleman to give
two of the four vacant seats in England to Ireland. Was
it because Ireland was more populous or more wealthy, or
that the Irish members were more useful in that house.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. MONSELL said that the propositions with regard
to the Irish peers struck him as most extraordinary, and he
believed it would give great dissatisfaction in Ireand. (Hear.)
An Irish peer was neither fish nor flesh in his own coun-
try ; but to give him the power of representing the people
when he was represented himself in the House of Peers
was a most absurd proposition, and one which he imagined
would not be accepted in that house. (Hear, hear.) He
agreed with his hon. friend near him, that the proposed
franchise for Ireland would not establish more than a nomi-
sal uniformity between the two countries. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE cordially agreed with the right hon.
gentleman as to the absurdity of the proposition with re-
gard to the Irish peers. The people of Ireland had not
their fair share ofrppresentation in that house, taking popu-
lation and wealth into consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. LEWIS said that, on the mere introduction of the
bill, it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of
the proposition for enabling Irish peers to sit for Irish
counties or boroughs, which the hon. member for Manger-
van described as a revolutionary measure; but he wished
to explain to the house the reasons why the Government
made that proposition, leaving the house to judge whether
these reasons were not sufficient, and whether the Conser-
vative susceptibilities of the hon. member for Dunervan
were not prematurely awakened. The Act of Union, in
the 4th Article, contained a provision which declared that
any person holding a peerage in Ireland should not be
disqualified from representing any county or borough
in Great Britain ; but that as long as he so continued a
member of the House of Commons he should net
be entitled to the privilege of peerage, or to tote for the
election of peers in Ireland. Such were the securities
which the Act of Union provided against the privilege of
the peerage being abusad in the case of Irish peers having
seats in that house for English or Scotch counties or
boroughs. That house was led for many years by the son
of an Irish peer (Lord Castlereagh), who sat for the county
of Down. After the death of his father he became ineligible
to sit for an Irish county, but he sat for an English bo-
rough. That was a remarkable instance of an Irish peer
possessing the right to sit and vote in tke English House
of Commons. The objection, therefore, that there would be
a confusion of rights if an Irish peer, while he was a mem-
ber of that house, were entitled to vote at an election of
representative peers, was wholly inapplicable, inasmuch as
by the provision which they proposed to introduce the Go-.
vernmeut were merely extendingthe rule which now existed
with respect to England and Scotland to Ireland. They
deprived no person of his rights; all they did was to say
that the disqualification which now attached to Irish voters,
of not being allowed, if they thought fit, to elect ati Irish
peer as their representative, should be abolished. That was,
in fact, the whole extent of the proposal.
Col. DlCKSONthought the clause relating to this matter
would be very strongly objected to in Ireland. It was a
common complaint in Valli cuntry landlords had too much
territorial influence over their tenants, and this proposal
would tend to increase that influence. He believed the Go •
vernment would not find a single Irish member in favour
of it.
Sir J. SHELLEY said there was ono objection which
applied to both the bills which had been proposed, namely,
that there was no provision for making the vote no longer
dependent on the payment of rates. He thought that every
man who was rated should be entitled to exercise the fran-
chise. Numbers of persons were now disfranchised simply
because they happened to be out of town, when the rates
were payable. Too much power was now placed in the
hands of collectors.
tioSnierdltVh.eBp°rol‘plEosßa
lVt
of Lr
eLdEu
csea itdh
es elvreirsahl
aenmcbhei
sr
es
forhardties from £l2 to £lO. He wished to know whethecrmoutehnne:
right hon. gentleman proposed that any portion of the new
Irish franchise should L
o,uldh saidatvhee rebfae:iesnocfe
ttio, hc'us
ueriltos.:
l‘cr o
CAf
wE
e franchise in counties and boro bill n
se:•as or
the tene-
ments.
d
inti
boroughs, but in all
other respects it would be in conformity with hie bill in-
troduced by his right hon. friend (Sir W. Soma ville.) As
regarded freemen, the English law with respect to them
limited the power of taking up the freedom to birth and
servitude. The Trish law had ( ther eTentents, and it was
proposed to assimilate it to the English law. With rega-d to
:r
caon period
w th)r
y tihhoe Grienv.eirsnioinoc.notf
the time at which theregistration would take eft', et, lie might
be too sanguine, but he hoped the bill would receive the
Royal
voters.
v one'
had proposed to give two new members to Ireland—one to
Cork andto Dublin—ho begged to say that, according assyenitthbef regardnotitleo uthsued
income tax valuation was £834,000, and the num
tants, its • •
r 895 Comparing these figures with
to the last census, the county of Cork had 663,000 inhabi-
ber of electors was Id, .
those relating to some of the large constituencies of England,
he thought there was ample reason for the proposed
o f
addi-
tion. Again, the city of Dublin contained a population
254,000, its income tax valution was £989,000, an the num-
ber of electors was 10,660. If Dirmingham ought to have a
third member Dublin might well claim the same advane
tar. The object of the Government was, he repeated, aim-

ply to give Irish electors a freer choice with regard to their
representatives. _

Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

The LORD ADVOCATE then rose to move for leave to
bring in a bill further to amend the laws relating to the
representation in Parliament of the people of Scotland. He
said he would commence his remarks by stating what the
Government proposed to do with' the'remaining two seats.
By this bill it was proposed to add one member to Glasgow,
and another to the universities of Scotland. He hoped the
house would agree that these two seats had been well and
justly selected, and he hoped they would turn out bene-
ficial to the country. As regarded the alterations proposed
to be made in the franchise, they would be assimilated as
nearly as the condition of the country would allow to those
in England. He proposed an occupation franchise' of £lO in
counties and £6 in boroughs. But, along with that, he also
proposed to simplify the registration. (Hear.) In Scot-
land they were in the position of having a complete valua-
tion from year to year, which showed at once who were the
proprietors, the tenants or occupiers, and the value of all
preperties. They made an experiment in this direction
some years ago, but he proposed to go a great deal further.
He proposed to take the valuation roll as the basis of the

franchise. (Hear.) By that they would get rid of some
of the machinery of the Reform Bill, because the valuation
roll would itself be the register, and the whole business of
the registration would be conducted by the assessor of the
county or borough. (Hear.) The appeal court might thus
meet in October or Nov., and have very little to do indeed.
With regard to the property franchise in counties, which
had been hitherto £lO, a considerable pressure had from
time to time been employed to introduce the 40s. franchise ;
it was, however, after the best consideration, not thought
desirable to do that ; but according to the proposition he had
to make, it was intended to reduce the property franchise
in counties from £lO to £5, which, allowing for certain de-
ductions, would be almost equivalent to £2. The great
danger of a property franchise in Scotland was the creation
of fictitious votes. Even the £lO franchise was used to a
large extent for that purpose ; and it was obvious that,
when the franchise was reduced to £5, the facilities for
creating fictitious votes would be still greater ; therefore, in
order to obviate that difficulty, he uroposed to introduce a
clause of residence. (Hear.) He did net kno* that he had
any further observations to make to the house, and he
should now move for leave to bring in the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. BAXTER protested against the injustice of the re-
distribution of seals for Scotland. He might be allowed to
say that the whole reasoning of the noble lord the member
for London on that part of the subject struck him as being
singularly fallacious. Bat he could not understand why,
if Dublin was to have an additional representative, Edin-
burgh should be left out. He begged to give notice that in
the event of the house assenting to the second reading of
the bill for England and Wales, it was his intention to
move that it be an instruction to the committee to disfran-
chise four or five more English seats, in order to take steps
towards giving Scotland that justice to which she was
entitled. (Hear. hear, and a laugh.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him that the
principle upon which the Government were proceeding was
a desire to promote a uniformity of the franchise in the
three kingdoms, with one important exception. Ho appre-
hended by what fell from the right hon. gentleman the
Secretary for Ireland that the franchise in Ireland was to
continue as it had been hitherto, the rating. In Scotland
the franchise was to be determined by the valuation roll,
which they were told would approach as nearly as possible
to a rating franchise in England. He, therefore, felt sorry
that the noble lord had determined to make an exception in
this important respect. He had long been of opinion that
a county franchise upon rating would simplify the registra-
tion very much, and he trusted the Government would
even now take that subject into consideration. (Hear.)
Sir J. FERGUSSON said the subject of reform occupied
a much more prominent place in Scotland than in England,
and he was of opinion that the proposal of the Government
would be viewed by reformers in Scotland as a very mode-
rate measure indeed.
Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to say a word or two in reply
to the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) as to
the bases upon which the Government proposed respec-
tively to found the franchises of England, Ireland, and
Scotland. The subject of value had been attentively con-
sidered by the Government before they made these pro-
posals;. and they made them as they now stood for the
following reasons :—ln Ireland the valuation of all tene-
ments was a Government valuation, founded on a
uniform principle, and, therefore, there could be no diffi-
culty in adopting it as the foundation of the Parliamentary
franchise. The franchise was defined by the amount at
which the tenement was rated. In Scotland the franchise
was not a rating franchise, but according to the clear yearly
value of the holding—the amount set down on the valuation
roll. This was found to a great extent in the income tax
assessment, and was tolerably uniform throughout the
whole of Scotland. When such a standard was in existence
it was unquestionably most desirable that it should be acted
upon. The right hon. baronet, who was such a thorough
master of all our rural economy, would not attempt to deny
this. But in England, unfortunately, no such uniformity
of valuation existed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—But the law requires it.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—Yes, the law requires that the rating
should be upon the value ; but, as a fact, they knew that
no control was exercised over parish officers, and that there
was a different mode of rating in different places—that in
some parishes certain deductions were made, whilst in others
the rating was made up to the full value ; so that if a Par-
liamentary franchise was so bestowed where there existed
such inequality, great injustice would be done. He would
very much like to see an amendment in the present law in
this regard ; and indeed had a bill prepared on the subject,
which, however, there was not much chance of passing
whilst Parliament was so much occupied. His desire in
passing such a bill, however, would not be to found the
present measure of reform upon it, but solely having regard
to the present mode of assessment.
Mr. CAIRO agreed with his hon. friend the member for
Montrose that the proportion of additional members allotted
to Scotland wa 3 not what justice required. He must express
his opinion, however, that the /reposed registration of
voters was a great improvement on the present system, and
that it should be self-acting was also of the greatest impor-
tance.
Mr. BLACKBURN concurred in thinking that the fran-
chise in the three countries should be as nearly uniform as
possible ; but this was not secured by the proposal of the
laarned lord. Scotland ought to have 70 representatives at
least. The addition of two was not sufficient. (Hear, hear.)
Four at least ought to have been added. He would give no
opinion as to the amount of property franchise—whether it
was too high or too low—but it ought to be the same for
England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He should
be glad to see the 40e. county franchise extended both to
Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. KINNAIRD warned the Government against not
satisfying Scotland. the Scotch members were a compact
phalanx, and, under the leadership of the Lord Advocate—
(a laugh)—might be very troublesome unless their reason-
able demands were complied with.
Mr. BAILLIE asked whether additional polling places
were to be provided in Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that additional polling
places would be provided. With regard to residence, he did
not mean 'to enforce it when the property was above £lO.
Neither did ha mean to deduct the feu-duty. With respect
to the complaints which had been made by members from
Scotland, he thought that Government, having four seats
to dispose of, had acted most fairly in giving two to the
largest city an county in Ireland, one to Glasgow, and one
to the Scottish universities.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
Lord IV. GRAHAM suggested that there should be a
new valuation in Scotland.
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.
Mr. MACKINNON moved fora select committee to take
into consideration the provisions and practicability of the
Masters and Operatives Bill; and whether any alterations
or improvements could be made in the said bill.
After some remarks from Sir G. C. LEWIS and Lord J.
MANNERS the motion was agreed to.
THE SERPENTINE.
Mr. COWPER moved that the select committee on the
Serpentine do consist of the following members :—Mr.
Co ,per, Lord J. Manners, Sir J. Shelley, Mr. Blackburn,
Sir M. Peto, Mr. Joseph Locke, Mr. Walter, Sir J. Paxton,
Lord Fer:noy, Mr. Byng, Mr. A. Egerton: Captain Az ch-
dall, Sir F. Smith, Mr. Beach, and Sir W. W. Ridley.
Power to send for persons, papers, and records—five to be
the quorum—which, after a division, was agreed to.
REFORM BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELLairought up the Reform Bill amid
the cheers of the house, and it was ordered to be read a
second time on Monday, the 19th inst.
:CUSTOMS ACTS.
The house went into committee on the Customs Acts.
Upon the article with regard to cotton manufactures
Mr. NE WDEGATE said he should be obliged if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the value of the
importations of manufactures of hosiery which had hitherto
entered into this country under the present duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that the principal articles imported had been cotton fringes
to the value of £16,000 in the year 18.58, 123,000 pair of
cotton gloves, 187,000 pairof cotton stockings, 86,000 cotton
socks, and £36,000 in value of other cotton goods. He be-
lieved the whole of the goods imported could not be over
£50,000

Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the people of this country
would not benefit much by the introduction of artificial
flowers.

- Mr...AYRTON regretted the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was moving these items without giving any assurAnce
to the working people of the country that he had carefully
considered the position of the persons engaged in these
small handicrafts in England as compared with the position
of persons similarly engaged in foreign countries. He
should 're glad to learn that out working classes were not
prejudiced by the arrangement. It might perhaps be said'
that they must sacrifice their interests as other classes had
been called on to do in other respects ; but there seemed to
him to be a great difference between the workinc, popula-
tion and those classes who had been invited to make sacri-
fices.

Sir J. PAKINGTON could not allow this schedule to
pass without recording Lis protest against the waste of
revenue which the Government were about to make.
Looking through the whole of the schedule, it was ha-
... . .

possible to imagine a more wanton waste of ottr resources.
In consequence of what passed at the close of the debate
on Tuesday night, it seemed to him that the question was
how far it was worth their while to sit there discussing
these articles. After considerable difficulty they obtained
from the Government on that evening a statement to the
effect that the rejection of any one article would vitiate the
treaty. He therefore thought that it was a waste of time
to discuss the different items, and to consider whether it was
wise or desirable to adopt them. On the other hand he could
not help hoping that, without regard to the effect upsn the
treaty, the present schedule would be debated in reference
solely to English interests and to the question how far it
wa,:dcsirable, as a matter of English policy, to abandon a
large revenue by remitting the'duties on such articles as
clocks, corks, embroidery, artificial flowers, leather manu-
factures, gloves, musical instruments, oils, silks, and
watches. (Hear, hear.) These 10 articles, which were coin-
.preliended in the schedule, yielded upwards of £409,000 a
year; and ought we to part with that large sum when we
were increasing our direct taxation and retaining the pre-
sent duty on tea and sugar ? The noble lord the Seceotnry
for Foreign Affairs admitted in his despatch that the arti-
cles which were not articles of necessity would not be dealt
With by the Government in their financial arrangements.
The noble hod also spoke of the collateral effects of the
treaty. What would be the first of these collateral effects ?
If he could trust the intelligence which had reaches'. London'
that day, the first collateral effect was likely to be the
seizure of Savoy by the Emperor of the French. (Hear.)
And he was disposed to agree with those eminent aithori-
ties both in and out of the house who declared that a colla-
teral effect of the treaty would be, instead of its creating