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

I find that, in five out of the seven counties which enjoy
the privilege of electing three members each, two were of
one party and one of the other. I regard it as a great
benefit to to those counties themselves, as well as to the
country at large, that there should exist such a disposition
not to exclude altogether a very strong minority, but to
allow it to have part of the representation. I know it is
said that the vote of the third member, the representative
of a minority, neutralises the vote of one of the other two.
That is not altogether true, because in many instances where
the questions at issue are not directly party questions all
three members may, and, we find, often do, vote together,
although sitting on different sides of the house. I think,
therefore, we shall not do wrong in giving three members to
some of the more populous towns, as we have given three
members to some of the larger counties. (Hear, hear.) I
have stated the distribution of seats which we propose to
make with respect to counties and boroughs. But there is
smother seat at our disposal, and we propose to give it to a
learned body which contains within it a sort of representa-
tion of those who are excluded from the older Universities
..-I mean the London University. (Hear.) I have already-
said that we wish to make our measure as simple as possi-
ble. We do not propose, in substituting £6 for £lO, to
change any of the conditions of the franchise except one—
viz., that which makes it necessary to pay the assessed
taxes. It appears to us that it is sufficient if a householder
pays his poor-rate, and that it would be a needless restric-
tion to render obligatory the payment of the assessed taxes.
(Hear, hear.) The house will also observe that all we pro-
pose, with the exception of the 25 seats I have mentioned,
is in the way of enfranchisement, and enfranchisement with
as little novelty as possible. Seeing the objections that
have been made and the failures that have occurred in
former years, we have sought to confine the attention of
Parliament to the question of the franchise, and to such
changes as seem absolutely to be required by the number
of places which demand and deserve representation, rather
than to alter other things which, however objectionable
they-may be considered, do belong to our ancient customs
and our long-established forms of representation. (Hear,
hear.) I believe in so doing we are taking the safest
and the best course. At all events, we shall enable Parlia-
ment to decide upon these questions by themselves, with-
out having its mind disturbed or its time consumed by the
discussion of refinements and novelties. (Hear.) Although
I have not succeeded in carrying two measures of reform
which I have had the honour to introduce of late years I
am by no means discouraged by that fact. For ten years
I laboured hard to obtain the assent of Parliament to mea-
sures of reform before I introduced the Bill of 1831. I
laboured in vain, but that did not prevent the success of
the Bill-of 1831. (Hear.) I feel sure that if hon. gentle-
men will apply their minds to the present measure, if they
will look upon it as a measure bringing, at all events, a con-
siderable portion of the working classes within the temple
of the constitution, enabling them to exercise privileges of
which they are worthy by their character and acquirements,
they will agree with me in Viinking that the foundations
of the 'constitution will be strengthened, and that we shall
hereafter rejoice at having passed such a bill. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—WiII the noble lord have the goodness
to state when he proposes to take the second reading of this
bill ?

Lord J. RUSSELL—I am not sure, but certainly not
within a fortnight from the present time,
Mr. BRIGHT—May I ask the noble lord whether he
has included the four seats which have been so long vacant
in his scheme ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—We have disposed of all the seats
which we propose to take away by the present bill ; and,
with respect to the four to which the hon. gentleman has
referred, we think it only fair, especially since they have
been so long vacant, to give Scotland and Ireland the
benefit of them. (Hear, hear.)
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY had the honour of a seat in that
house when the noble lord introduced the bill of 1831. At
that time he felt that there was a great practical necessity
for some change in the representation of the people, but he
confessed the case was very different on the present occa-
sion. (Hear, hear.) But he had not risen to discuss the
question of the franchise. What he wanted to know was
the principle upon which the noble lord proposed to disfran-
chise no fewer than 25 towns. The noble lord had given
no intelligible reason for that disfranchisement. He might
have seized 100 seats instead of 25. Was it come to this,
that the rights and privileges of every town in the king-
dom should be placed at the merey of a majority in the
House of Commons ? While a great number of the abuses
which had come under the attention of the house was taken
no notice of, it was proposed to forfeit one-half of the pri-
vileges now belonging to 25 of the smallest towns in Eng-
land. The progress of the discussion would show that the
noble lord was creating more anomalies than he was de-
stroying.
Mr. HARDY inquired whether the returns on which the
noble lord had founded his statement with respect to
borough voters would be laid on the table, and expressed a
hope that plenty of time would be allowed hon. members
for the consideration of the subject.
Mr. BYNG thanked the noble lord for having considered
the claims of Chelsea and Kensington, and asked whether
under the proposed bill, those who had qualifications for
the county on account of property situated within the limits
of a borough would still exercise the franchise.
Mr. VANSITTART wished to know whether the noble'
lord had it in contemplation to make any alteration in the
boundary limit, of the present boroughs.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the Government did not propose
to take the county franchise from the voters referred to byl
the hon. member for Middlesex. The question put with!
respect to the bsundaries of boroughs involved an important
subject, and raised the ulterior question whether it would
be desirable to add to existing boroughs certain other small
towns in their neighbourhood. (Cries of " No.") But the;
Government did not now propose to introduce any proviJ
sion on the subject.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE asked whether the county franchis4
of £lO was to consist of land and buildings as in towns.
Mr. CAIRD observed that, though the noble lord had
given an estimate of the addition that would be made by th
bill to the borough constituency, yet he had not given th
slightest estimate as to the probable addition of voters t
county constituency.
Mr. WALPOLE had understood the noble lord to inti.l
mate that the returns by which he had computed the num4
ber of electors to be added to the boroughs would be laid
on the table of the house in the course of that evening oil
to-morrow. The noble lord also stated that the payment
of rates was to form part of the qualification for boroughs
as now, but he wished to know whether the payment of
rates must be made by the tenant himself, or whether it
might be made by any other person on his behalf. With
regard to the general scheme proposed, he thought the
• house seemed to be of opinion that it would be very desk.
able to postpone any discussion on the matter until the bill
was laid before it—(hear, hear)—and the only observation
he wished now to make was that the more he reflected on
the subject the more he was convinced that the old distine4
tion between counties and boroughs ought to be maintained,
and he thought the noble lord would find that it ought to
be maintained to a greater extent than the proposed bill
provided.
Mr. AYRTON stated his belief that under the bill the
great majority of the working people who occupied lodgingfi
would be excluded from the franchise. He did not desire at
present to express any opinion on any other part of the bill,
• but he asked whether it was expedient to pass a very small
measure of Reform, which would only create considerable
agitation without providing the means of allaying it ?
Major EDWARDS asked whether, if the bill passed, it
would not lead to an immediate dissolution. (Laughter.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the measure would causd
disappointment to the country, and complained that no ad-I,
dition was proposed ti the number of members representing
the present metropolitan boroughs. (Laughter.)
Sir J. OGILVY said that the bill, so far as it related to
the re-apportionment of representation, would greatly dia-
appoint the people of Scotland.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the noble lord would inform
the house what addition to the county representation would
be effected by his bill.
Lord R. CECIL asked whether the bill would contain
any provision for increasing the number of polling places.
Sir G. GREY said the bill contained no such provision.
The hon. member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe) did not
appear quite to understand the condition to be attached to
the £lO county franchise in cases where the qualification
consisted of lands and buildings jointly. The bill pro-
posed that the qualification in counties should be of
the same character as the present borough qualification,
and should consist of houses or buildings held either
separately or jointly with land. If the building
were a dwelling-house, no question of its value would be
raised ; but in other cases it would be required that the
building should be of the clear annual value of £5. Thia
provision was intended to prevent the creation of fictitious{
votes by running up a few boards so as to satisfy the terms,
but evade the spirit of the Act. Of course in the case of
.a#
dwelling-house there would be no need of any such prove
sion. With regard to the question of the hon. member
(Mr. Newdegate) it was not so easy to give an accurate'
estimate of thenumber of voters in counties as of the borough'
voters. The number of occupiers in counties could be as-
certained without much difficulty; but this would not be
sufficient,because although such a return would show the
maximum number of voters to be added under any circum-
stances, it would not show the deduction to be made in re-
spect of the conditionwhicli he had just mentioned—namely
that where there was a joint occupation of lands and build-
.of a
build-
ings the buildings should be
certain value. There
were already returns of occupiers in counties,
and further
information would be given on this subject, but it could not
be relied upon for accuracy to the same extent as similar
returns for boroughs.
Mr. T. DUN COMBE—Having had the honour of a seat
,the Parliament which passed the last Reform 13i11, and
hsving• heard the noble lord propose that bill, I cannot help
contrasiing his gallant spirit on that occasion with his very
subdued tone this evening. (Laughter.) I congratulate
hon. genttlernen opposite, because no violence can possibly
be done to their feelings by the small measure now pro-
posed. When the old Reform Bill was introduced I remem-
ber a highly respectable metropolitan banker rising in his
PL.Nce behind the noble lord and saying that the scheme ac-
tual ly took away his breath. Now nobody's breath has
been t 'liken away by the present proposal—(laughter)—
though 14,1 me of us seem to be deprived of our powers of