The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1860.

always regarded the franchise as a privilege to be exercised
for the benefit of the country ; and when a class was put-

have formerly advanced in this house on Parliamentary
reform, and believing, as I hope I may on this subject, that
am, notwithstanding the Quarterly Review, expressing the
opinions of those gentlemen who sit on this side of the
house—(cheers)—l am not afraid to say I think it would
be most impolitic at' this moment to attempt a seta lemont

ting forward a claim to it they conceived that they'had not
merely to ask whether that class might enjoy the personal
privilege which they sought, but whether it could be given
them without conferring on them a predominant power
which would not be for the general advantage. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord, then, had not succeeded in establishing any
fair ground of complaint against the Parliamentary con-
duct of the Opposition; but if he complained that his mea •
sure had been fully and severely examined, then he must
remind the noble lord that on his own side there had been
critics as able, as eloquent, and as assiduous as on the
other. (Cheers and laughter.) He could understand the
tone of the noble lord if he were about to fulfil that im-
portant programme with which he began the session ;
he could understand the noble lord if he had told them
that the bill was an essential part of his policy, that
the objections to it were of a trifling character, and
that even if it were necessary to sit six months with-
out a prorogation to carry it, carry it they should.
But was that the course adopted by the noble lord to-night ?
When the noble lord talked of the paltry opposition which
was made to his measure, and of a paltry course of conduct,
the house might be interested to oliserve what the noble
lord had done. He commenced the session by three
measures of representative reform—the representation for
England, Ireland, and Scotland—all were to be amended,
and the representation of England was to be made the re-
presentation front which the others were to be fashioned.
The noble lord was stern and stiff as to the conditions upon
which these amendments in the representation of the coun-
try were to be accomplished. The noble lord remembered
that in opposition he gave a programme which led to a de-
cision—(hear)—which forced the country to what was pro-
bably a premature decision—he remembered that he defined
the amount of the franchise upon which he called for a re-
form of the constituency. But what had the house heard
to-night? Two of the bills were to be given up, but with
regard to the other the house might do what it liked with it
That high policy which had displaced Ministers and dis-
severed parties had melted away, and so long as the house
would only shovel the measure out of the way, anything it
might do would be acceptable. Well, continued the right
hon. gentleman, it may be very discreet, it may be very
wise to-night to give these moderate counsels, and tempe-
rate measures, when one of those Ministers who ought -to
regulate the public conduct of the House of Commons—when
one who has just now occupied such a position, and has
given an address which is still fresh in the remembrance of
Parliament and the country—when that Minister declares
that fair conduct is to be looked upon as paltry. We have
listened, I am sure, with no hostile feeling in a very calm
house to the statement of the noble lord, who has chosen
well his position and selected well his words. Every one must
have felt that the plan which the noble lord has recommended
to us to-night offers a most strange and startling contrast
to the counsels which were offered upon these benches—
(cheers)—with regard to Parliamentary Reform in the tone
and temper in which these measures were brought before
us when Parliament,first met, But is this all ? The state-
ment of the noble lord must not be looked upon merely
with regard to the conduct of ministers or the circum-
stances of party conflict in this house. The question is
too deeply interesting for accessories of this nature. After
all this fanfaronnade in opposition, and the deeply ma-
tured schemes, in the responsible position of a minister of
the Crown the noble lord comes forward to-night and pro-
poses that we should reconstruct the constituency of Eng-
land, totally omitting and neglecting any reconstruction
of the constituencies of the two sister kingdoms. To say
nothing less of it, is this a constitutional course ? I will
not ay it is a politic coarse ; but it is a way of cutting the
Gordian knot which this house will, I think, hardly sanc-
tion or admire. (Cheers.) We have always heard that if
this question of Parliamentary reform is to be brought for.
ward, it is not to be brought forward piecemeal, but pro-
viding for the three countries pari passu, and there were
sound constitutional reasons for such a course in 1832 e
which no one could dispute. But if two of the measures
are to be abandoned, and one to be continued, what becomes
of the claims of Scotland and Ireland to increased represen-
tation ? We have been always told by their 3epresenta-
tives that we cannot decide with any satisfaction to them
the settlement of the English constitution without taking
their claims into consideration. What will the gentlemen
from Ireland and Scotland say when they are told the re-
form of the constitution of England is to be finished in the
month of June, 180, and the consideration of theirs is to be
postponed to another year. What will become of those
claims to increased representation of which we have heard
so much ? (Cheers.) I may remind the house that no
hon. gentleman of Irel nd or Scotland will be able to urge
those claims with any effect when the question of England
is passed. Bat suppose, notwithstanding the " tranquil"
condition of public affairs—a description of the pre-
sent state of things which, coming from a Secretary of
State, must be most assuring to all who hear it—suppose
that tranquil state of affairs is changed in the course of
next year. What then will be the state of the Scotch and
Irish representation ? (Cheers.) It may be inconvenient,
it may be impossible, to amend the representation of Scot-
land and Ireland next year. Notwithstanding the all-per-
vading tranquillity of Europe, the noble lord may find
troubles next year which will so absorb and engross public
attention, and so occupy the attention of the Government,
that the noble lord who now holds the office of Secretary
for Foreign Affairs may not have time to amend the repro-
, sentation of Scotland and Ireland. But what with regard
to England ? If the English representation is amended,
are you to have a partial dissolution of Parliament ?
(Cheers.) Ara the members for England from the new
constituencies to be elected, and must we have the mem-
bers elected by the old constituencies of Ireland and Scot-
land ? Or,'in the conflict of our difficulties, will you avoid
the solution by having no dissolution whatever ? In that
case, we who sit here will sit as a condemned Parliament.
Session after session, year after year, great bodies of our
countrymen will say—" This man calls himself the mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire—(cheers and a laugh)—but he
is nothing of the kind." lam thankful to say I can
bear the test as well as most men, but I am sure
will be embarrassing to gentlemen on both sides of the
house. (Laughter.) But for what length of time is Parlia-
ment to be in this uncertainty ? I cannot agree with the
noble lord in those sanguine views which have been enun-
ciated by his faithful adherents—by the friends of Parlia-
mentary reform —regarding the state of the country at this
moment. I have never been an alarmist. I know there are
exaggerations of danger which may lead to depression of
public feeling just as they may on the other hand increase a
high patriotic tone of feeling. But taking the calmest and
gravest view of public affairs, I think I am justifi d in say-
ing that matters are going on which should excite the
anxiety and engage the deep attention of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Is ,this a period when Parliament should be
left in the dislocated state in which the plan, I will not say
the policy, of the noble lord, contemplates leaving it. I can-
not believe that the house can sanction this plan of dealing
with the representation of Englani without at the same
time dealing with the representation of the sister countries.
I do not believe the house will run the chance of leaving the
representation of Ireland and Scotland to be considered by
the Legislature, with the prospect of meeting next year
amidst great dangers—when it will be impossible that the
country should look up to the house with respect or confi-
dence, an act having passed which signifies that the repre-
sentatives of the country are not competent to their duty or
not worthy of their trust. This is a grave position. The
noble lord leas had more to do than to make a few common-
place observations upon going into committee of supply. He
has had to make some of the weightiest statements that
have ever been heard in this house. That we should re-
form the constituency of England without reforming the
constituencies of Ireland and Scotland is a proposal which
was never made by a minister before. (Cheers.) And
is there anything authorising so unwise and disastrous a
course ? On the contrary, the noble lord does not contem-
plate accepting and enacting the policy which he recom-
mends. Whatever he may have said of the working classes
he has no conviction of the necessity of the measure he has
brought forward ; he has no confidence that, if carried, it
would accomplish and fulfil his purpose. He says to us,
" If you don't like this proposition, suggest something else,
and I give you to understand your proposal shall be received
by the Government in a candid and disinterested spirit."
(Cheers and Laughter.) What does that mean ? (Cheers.)
It means that there is no policy. (Prolonged cheers.)
Giving up Ireland, giving up Scotland, coming to the
members for England, and asking them to place themselves
in the despicable position which I have described—upon
any terms which the house can scramble together for the
occasion—all this proves no conviction of the necessity of
this measure—no confidence in the provisions of this
measure. But the noble lord upon this subject, as from
the first, exercising a fatal influence—as I said to him at a
time when I stood opposite to him as he sat on these
benches—both to this question and to his own reputation,
was induced to recommend a policy in opposition which he
has found ikimpossible to accomplish as a Minister—but is
hazarding the safety of the country in order, not even that
he may realize his fair expectations on this subject, but
that he may terminate them in a manner which if nothing
dignified, is hardly respectable, and recognise in them an
unwise, an immature—l will even say—a factious policy.
(Cheers.) And then the noble lord turns round with much
indignation upon some of his supporters, who have abso-
lutely been so presumptuous as to conceive some different
means of extricating himself and his colleagues from the
painful position which he occupies. One gentleman thinks
it would be just as well that we wait until, in the most
authoritative manner, we have accurate information as
to the amount of the population. Then the noble lord
thinks that his policy is compromised by his own con-
duct. If the noble lord had not proposed to give up the
marrow of his bill, when he had generally confessed that
he proposed to do it although he did not propose to
agree on any terms .to the franchise, yet he laid it down
as an indispensable condition—but if the noble lord had not
proposed to do this—the statesman who comes forward with
a plan for the amendment of the representation of the peo-
ple, and founds his measure upon population—with what
face and reason can he turn round and reproach his sup-
porter who says, " If this be the principle onewhich the
measure is to be founded, let us have the most ample, the
most authentic, the most novel, the most recent informa-
tion." NoW, sir, I make these comments upon the remarks
of the noble lord. I think they are fair and just ones. My
Own opinion is—yielding none of those positions which I

such as that projected by the noble lord. (Cheers.) If the
noble lord had the power indeed to deal comprehensively
and completely with the subject—if the noble lord had said-
" I have here a comprehensive bill for England, Ireland,
and Scotland ; the principles and conditions upon which
we propose that power should be allotted in these countries
have been long considered and deeply matured—by them
we mean to stand or fall"—in bringing forward such a
policy, even perhaps with impending war and impending
revolution, we feel that it might strengthen the common-
wealth, might increase the public courage, and animate
public spirit in England—we might think the noble lord
and his colleagues rash, we might think them ill-advised,
we might think the occasion full of danger, but all must
admit that it would at least be a policy assured and deter-
mined by eminent men—which they undoubtedly were—
and entitled, if not to adoption by the country, at least to
respect. But when at a moment of undisguised danger, at
a period of most certain peril, the noble lord comes forward
after all with no policy, but with a compromise which, to
use his own epithet, I must characterise as paltry—l see
no safety in such a course—l recognise no security in such a
proceeding; but I feel that at a moment when this house
should stand on high, and this country should be united,

we are recommended to try a course which may enfeeble
the one, and may dishonour the other. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. MACKINNON moved "that in order to obtain a
safe and effective reform, it would be inexpedient and un-
just to proceed further with the proposed legislative mea-
sure for the representation of the people until the house has
before it the results of the census authorised by the bill now
under consideration." As a general supporter of the Go-
vernment, he felt himself placed in a somewhat awkward
position. in proceeding with the motion of which he had
given notice, but he believed the bill was neither popular in
the house nor in the country, and he therefore felt it his
duty to state to the house the reasons which had induced
him to adopt the course hehad taken. In 1831 he introduced
a motion in precisely similar terms, and although a majo-
rity of the house at that time were pledged to reform, he
was only defeated by a majority of 74. The bill, however,
did not pass until the following year, when the census was
really taken. He thought no real object would be attainetl
by pushing forward the present measure with:railway speed.
The higher and middle classes were altogether opposed to
the. bill, inasmuch as they would be swamped by numbers,
and so far as the lower classes were concerned, they were
entirely indifferent to it. For some years he had had consi-
derable intercourse with the working classes in connection
with a bill he had introduced for arranging differences be-
tween masters and operatives, and he could honestly and
conscientiously state as the result of his experience, that the
lower classes were not in the slightest degree anxious that
this bill should pass. In point of fact he had received a letter
from a well-informed and sensible man, Mr. Humphries, of
Kentish-town, a member of the central committee of the
National Association of Trades in London, in which he said:
" Seeing the use which some parties seem desirous to make
of the working (lasses in order to secure the passing of the
bill of Lord J. Russell, allow me to assure y u, that se far
as I am able to judge of their feeling in the matter, they are
perfectly indifferent about it, and for all the excitement or
agitation that exists there might be no such measure before
the country. In London, if there is any feeling at all upon
the matter, it is rather against than in favour of the bill,
because it entirely and intentionally excludes the most
thoughtful, sober, and intelligent portion of the mechanics
of our metropolis, simply from their inability to do more
' than occupy apartments, though many of them pay £l5 or
£2O a year rent. A reform bill which purposely excludes
that portion of the people from its operation cannot be N. ery
' cap'ivating to them, and therefore the House of Commons
need not bo surprised at the evident apathy and indifference
of the working classes at Lord J. Russell's Reform Bill.
Nay, further, their very silence is not so much indifference
as it is positively contempt. The only demonstration made
by the working classes arising out of the bill was that in
Hyde-park on Sunday, the 15th of April, when, in no very
complimentary language, they denounced it as a sham, a
delusion, and a snare. There is another paint to which I
wish to call your attention, and that is, the appeal of Mr.
Bright to trades' unions to send delegates to attend before
, Parliament. This, however, is a vain and empty appeal.
Mr. Bright knows very well, if he knows anything of tradek'
unions, that political questions are rigidly excluded from
, them, and for this reason, that if they were perrnit!ed to
form part of their disCussion, discussion would lead to dis-
sension, and dissension to disunion—a consummation
which
m doubt
a übbt
e wouldgratifying o 1
i whichti on ga w
the
cl hon-
curablesosuelsd
be regarded
highly
ty gh
yabm:but w the
You may depend upon it that there is no danger of the
' trades' unions responding to the appeal of Mr. Bright. The
same be said with regard to benefit societies. The hundreds
of thousands of working men forming these institutions are
all strictly forbidden and prohibited from introducing at
their meetings any questions of a political character, so that
these societies are not likely to endanger their existence by
becoming the tools of any political agitator. (Hear, hear.)
He asked, then, was it not absurd to imagine that 1 he lower
one hon. member that he should vote for the bill because the
Lords would be sure to throw it out. (Hear, and a laugh )
He was riding up from Hertfordshire the other day, and he
saw in a green field some innocent sheep enjoying theirpas-
ture ; but presently he saw them put up in a pen; and he
s argreat
for becai
rl
mamßirmingham,
ini
classes cared about this Reform Bill ? He had been told by
said to himself, " Why, that is like the member for Bir-
mingham, driving us up to his Reform Bill." (A. laugh.)
Was it fair that those individuals who had little or no educa-
tion and no property, should legislate for the people of Eng-
land ? He had presided as chairman over the Masters and
Operatives Committee, and ono of 'the witnesses examined
before that committee was Mr Potter, secretary to theßuild-
ers' Union. Mr. Potter stated, in answer to a question, that
he corresponded indirectly with 600,000 operatives, who had
a central commit tee in London. Let the house consider for a
moment the great danger of such a combination of people hav-
ing the franchise, acting under one head ; would they not
swamp the upper and middle classes altogether—(hear)—and
might not the result be that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer should entirely take away all indirect taxation ?
(Hear, hear.) Why should
.the house deprive officers in
the army and navy, solicitors, and engineers, of the fran-
chise, and give it to those men ? Less than 100 years ago
it had been said in that house that the power of the crown
had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.
Now, he said the power of the crown had decreased and
ought to be supported. (Hear, hear.) The Emperor Na-
poleon said to the Italians, "If you don't fight for. your
liberty, you don't deserve it; and he (Mr. Mackinnon) said
to the House of Commons, "If you, gentlemen of England,
don't preserve your constitution, you deserve to lose it."
The hon. member concluded by proposing the amendment
of which he had given notice.
. Sir H. STRACEY seconded it. •
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it would not be necessary for laim
to trouble the house at any length in answer to the obser-
vations of his hon. friend (Mr. Mackinnon). The most racy
portion of his hon. friends remarks was that relating to a
letter which he read to the house, and which had been ad-
dressed to him by members of the working classes or some
of those committees connected with trades, who constituted
themselves the representatives for the time of the working
classes. lie understood that letter to assert that the bill
before the house was "a sham, a snare,.and a delusion,"
the result of which he understood to mean that this bill,
professing to enfranchise the working classes, did not con-
fer upon them any essential political power. Unless that
was the meaning of the letter, it seemed to him totally des-
titute of meaning or applicability. (Hear, hear.) The
plain and obvious tendency of that letter, which his hon.
friend had paraded as a great reflection of the esoteric
feelings of the working classes, was in fact that is did not
go far enough, and did not include in its provisions a suf-
ficient number of the working classes. There was one
expression which fell from his hon friend which it was dif-
ficult to comprehend—namely, that this bill excluded all
the "thoughtful" 'portion of the working classes. He
(Sir G. Lewis) professed himself unable to comprehend
how the author of that letter reconciled it that a £l.O or £6
franchise included all the thoughtless portion of the work-
ing classes. (Hear, hear.) He should now address himself
to the subject of his hon. friends motion, which had for its
object to postpone the consideration of the bill till the census
of next year should be taken. Now the results of the census
could not be in the hands of Parliament in time to found
any legislation upon it in the course of next session ; there-
fore the necessary consequence of postponing the measure
till after the results of the census were known, would be to
enable legislation upon it next session impossible. (Hear,
from the Opposition.) That might or might not be a
matter of congratulation to hon. members opposite—he
merely stated it as a fact that those who gave a vote to
postpone the measure till after the results of the census
were known, would postpone it till beyond the period of
next session. (Hear.) With regard to that matter, there
oneb
etaer
ir yn
go buswvhioa teverremuaprokn tot h
ab;pe ma
ratdoef,
tthhiast
btihl
le, census
borough franchise should be limited to £lO or £6. (Hear.)
tuhwaasmd noed almost exclusively upon the question whether the
Therefore the ground of postponement which was now
alleged applied exclusively to that portion of the bill which
was not the main subject of dispute in that house. With
regard to the question of the census, so far as it related to
the transfer of seats, there was no clause in the bill which
said that all boroughs under 7,000 population should be dis-
franchised. That was merely a circumstance stated in de-
bate by his noble friend in introducing the bill, and all he
asked the house to do was to transfer seats from certain
boroughs to other boroughs or to counties. (Hear, hear.)
It was stated as a ground for making a selection that those
fell within the lino of 7,000. But there was no charm in
the number of 7,ooo—(hear, hear, ironically)—more than
thero was in the number of 6,000 proposed by the late Go-
vernment. They must take some number upon which the
franchise should be based; whether it should be 7,000 ac-
cording to ttse census oflBsl, or 7,600 according to the cen-
sus of 1861, it could not be material. But what was ma-

And unless it should bd
,maintained by argument that the
relative position was likely to be materially altered by the
coming census, the ground for postponement must fail. He
denied that any hon. gentleman could show that the smallest
reason existed for a postponement until after the next cen-
sus should be taken. (Hear, hear.) The facts before the

house were nut likely to be altered by waiting or by fur-
ther delay, and he therefore thought it would be trifling
with the measure if they made this a pretext for postponing
it. He believed it could be equally well considered now
as in 1861. Indeed he believed that if the house had any
option, it would be better to adopt the census which was
taken when there was no prospect of a reforin bill being in-
troduced, than a census which might be tampered with
when they know that it might affect legislation. He had.
consulted the Registrar-General on the subject, and he said
he should have far more confidence in referring to the fran-
chise in the census of 1851 than upon the one of next year
upon which to found a reform bill, because he thought
efforts might be made to cause returns which might not
be accurate, and which might be laid before Parliament in
that state. He would not say that frauds would be perpe-
trated, but in such a case at such a time inaccuracies might
arise. (Hear.) Upon the merits of the matter no case had
been shown for the postponement of the bill until the census
of 1861 should be placed in their hands. If the House of
Lords should be of opinion that the bill was founded upon
:just principles, and if it were desirable to take a limited po-
pulation as a ground for partial disfranchisement—as in the
bill of last session and.in this session—no case could be made

out for postponing legislation until next year. (Hear.) The
census of 1851 afforded a most clear and efficient basis for
the calculation. He would therefore entreat the house, if
they seriously proposed to deal with the bill, and if they
were not merely looking to this motion as a means of post-
ponement, but were ready to discuss this bill upon its
merits, and to entertain the question of disfranchisement
upon the basis of population, to reject this motion without
waiting for another two years to elapse, and until the census
could be in their hands. Supposing some hon. members
thought they should discuss the elements of property and
the number of voters as a ground of disfranchisement, still
all those facts were in their possession, and the questions
could be raised in committee. The Government had con-
sidered these alternatives before makiftg their propositions
to the house, because he was aware it might be said that if
they took the numbers of voters instead of population, they
would arrive at a'different result; still it would have been
called a vicious principle, and the basis of population w uld
have been urged by hon. members. (Hear.) There could
be no expectation that they would arrive at unanimity upon
this subject, and the question could only be decided by a
majority of voters when they got into committee. No use-
ful object could bo obtained by delay. All the material ele-
ments for legislation were in their possession, and the coun-
try would hardly believe that the house was seriously bent
upon the consideration of reform if they assented to the
motion of the hon. member for Rye.
Sir 11. STRACEY said if there were any use in the
census at all, they would do wrong in legislating when a
bill like this was based upon numbers and population. Be-
ing based on population, surely the greatest accuracy would
be given by the census, and at the present time they found
that the greatest possible inaccuracy prevailed. The hon.
and learned member for Marylebone had shown that to be the
case. No doubt, if any one of the amendments were carried
against the bill, the noble lord would feel greatly obliged to
the hon. mover of it. (Hear.) He should have thought
that the mental capacity of the voter would be made a point
of consideration in giving the franchise, but that was not
the case in this bill. The hon. member for Birmingham
said he regarded the bill as a stepping-stone to universal
suffrage.
Mr. BRIGHT said he expressed his opinion in that
house and out of it, and he asked the hon, gentleman to
show that he had ever said anything in favour of universal
suffrage. (Hear.)
Sir H. STRACEY said the hon. gentleman declared he
regarded this bill as an instalment, and he understood
thereby that he meant universal suffrage. But perhaps the
hon. gentleman meant only household suffrage. .
Mr BRIGHT said that when he spoke of the bill as be-
ing an instalment he referred to a further distribution of
seats. (Oh, oh.)
Sir H. STRACEY was sorry if he misrepresented the hon.
gentleman. But the hon. gentleman was a democratic
leader of that house, and he was sorry to see the occupants
of the treasury bench dependent on such support as the hon.
memberfor Birmingham could bring them for their position
in that house. He believed that some of them would be
glad to see this bill disappear altogether. Although they
might support the measure by their vo es, he thought he
could see by the faces of some of them that they thought
differently. (Laughter.) He might say of them " Video
meliora proboque ; deteriora sequor." He hoard some of
them compared to so many Chevaliers Bayards, but if it
could ba said of them that they lived sans peur he believed
they would never die as he did, sans reproche. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. GREG; SON considered that this was the very best
time for passing a Reform Bill when they had no disturb-
ance at home, and were .at peace with Europe.
Mr. BARROW believed it was desirable that a bill
should pass, but then it ought to bo a bill that was likely
to last for some years, and not a bill, as this was, which
would last for only a few months. He was as anxious as
any man could be that there should be some change in
the representation, but he wished it should be a permanent
one, and he feared that no permanent change could be
effected without fuller information.
Sir F. GOLDSMID trusted that hon. members would
permit of the measure being settled this session.
Mr. BOVILL and an HoN. MEMBER on the Ministerial
side rose together, and for some minutes disputed the at-
tention of the chair. Finally, the former hon. and learned
member proceeded to address the house. What, he said,
were the materials to whieh the Government might have
looked in considering the disfranchisement of boroughs ?
Were they to take mere population, men, women, and
children, or were they to take the number of voters in re-
lation to the whole number of inhabitants ? There might
be objections to that test—but were there no other?
Population was tried in 1841, but it was found imprac-
ticable, and in 1832 the Government of the day deter-
mined to proceed upon the relative importance of the
boroughs. Let the house observe how the Government
scheme affected the boroughs df Tavistock, Tiverton,
and Tamworth. Tavistock was not to be interfered
with ; at present A 33 electors returned two members ;
59 would be added by this bill, making 492. The borough
of Guildford, with 723 voters, was to be deprived of one of
its members. Why was that ? (Hear, hear.) Guild-
ford had increased in population and importance. The
number to be added by this bill would be 207, making the
electors for Guildford 930—nearly twice the number of elec-
tors at Tavistock ; and yet it was proposed to leave Tavistock
its two members, and take one away from Guildford. (Hear.)
The bill would give two additional members to the 14 now
returned for the county and boroughs of South ['even,
while one was taken away from West Surrey. Tiverton
had now 526 voters, 242 would be added by the bill, making
768. Tiverton retained both its members, though Guild-
ford, with 930 voters, lost one of its representatives. Tam-
worth, with 520 voters, would have 98 added.
Sir R. PEEL—I beg to assure the hon. and learned gen-
tleman that that return is entirely erroneous. (Loud cheers
from the Opposition.)
Mr. BOVILL said he relied on the same return for Tam-
worth as for other places. He understood that the Govern-
ment maintained the accuracy of the returns; but if they
were inaccurate, the case for postponement was stronger.
Tamworth would, under the bill, have 618 voters, a smaller
number than Guildford had now. (Hear.)
Sir l:. PE EL again rose and said—The hon. gentleman is
stating what is incorrect. (Cheers, and cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER—The hon. baronet will have the oppor-
tunity of replying to the hon. and learned gentleman after-
wards.
Mr. POVILL said the comparisons he had made showed
the fallacy of the test adopted by the Government—that of
population. That test had been at first adopted under the
Reform Bill of 1831, but it was afterwards abandoned. To
take a population of 7,000 instead of 6,000 as a test of dis-
franchisement, was to proceed on no principle at
all. He understood the noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
to admit that the question of a £6 franchise was not a prin-
ciple of the bill, but one that might be settled in committee.
The only principle of the Government appeared to be, that
as the late Government had proposed a population of 6,000
as a test of partial disfranchisement, aild a £lO franchise,
the present Government would propose 7,000 as the mini-
mum, and a£6 franchise. They could not proceed in com-
mittee on that; but why, it was difficult to understand ;
and yet they were now asked to proceed in committee with-
out any information. He should certainly support the
amendment. The bill was not considered satisfactory by
anybody—not even by Ministers themselves. (Hear, hear.)
They ought to proceed on certain fixed principles—namely,
to look to the relative importance of boroughs. Tf they did
that they would find a test which was acted upon, and with
success, on a former occasion. If they adopted that course
no one would have a right to complain, but. they must first
have information to work upon. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BAINES did not think it at all necessary or expe-
dient to postpone the bill until the census of 1861 was
taken.
Mr. M. FARQUHAR entirely concurred with those
hon. gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the motion.
He believed the house had not sufficient information before
it upon which to legislate.
Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate; which
was agreed to.
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday.
On the next order of the day for going into committee on
the Irish and Scottish Reform Bills,
Mr. BLACKBURN said ho had come up fresh from
Scotland, and he wished to know whether the Government
intended to proceed with the bill for the reform of the repre-
sentation of the people of Scotland ?
Mr. WHITESIDE observed that he had heard the noble
lord the Foreign Secretary announce that he would confine
himself to the bills for England and Ireland, and that the
bill for Scotland would not be proceeded with.
After a few words from Mr. COLLINS,
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that what he

tonal was -Whether the boroughs selected foi disfranchise- had before said was, that the English bill would be pro-
ment in part had a population relative to other boroughs. ceeded with in committee, and that they thought they
If it should turn out that the boroughs selected stood in a would not have time to go on with the Irish and Scotch
relative position to other towns it would be perfectly imma- ' bills, but they might as well now be appointed for com-
torial whether the highest teTal wag 7,100 or 7,200, (Hear.) mittee oa Thweday, He might vbsoryo that the late