The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-30 00:00:00

the House of Commons would assent to such a change, or
would suffer the work of the last five months to be
rendered nugatory ? He must, therefore, on the part of
the Government, ask the house to reject the motion.
Lord CARNARVON objected to the redistribution
scheme contained in the bill as quite disproportioned to the
extended franchise, and remarked that the county repre-
sentation being the only check left upon household suf-
frage it was unduly limited, being only one-third of the
*hole representation. He could not support the abstract
resolution now proposed, but he would be prepared to vote
for Lord Grey's proposition to deprive of double repre-
sentation boroughs with less than 12,000 inhabitants.
Lord DE GREY and the Duke of CLEVELAND spoke in
support of the resolution, while Lord Lifford, equally de-
precating the Government scheme, professed his inability
to support the abstract proposition now made. Lord Rom-
ney, regarding the resolution as a vote of want of confi-
dence, declared his intention to support the Government.
Lord RUSSELL, desiring that the present measure
should be a settlement of the reform question, regretted
that the Government should resist the resolution, as ho
considered their redistribution scheme too imperfect to be
permanent.
Lord Taunton supported the resolution, as did also Lord
Barrowby, who desired to increase the county representa-
tion as a counterpoise to the lowered franchise in boroughs.
The Duke of BUCKINGUAM justified the scheme em-
bodied in the bill, and urged that it would be indiscreet to
make any material alteration in respect of redistribution.
After some observations from Lords Stratford de Red-
cliffs and Fortescue in favour of the resolution, the house
divided, and there were 59 in favour and 100 against the
motion of Lord Halifax, which was therefore lost.
The house then went into committee upon the bill, and
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On clause 3 a conversational discussion was raised by
Lord Ellenborough as to the meaning of the words "all
poor rates," and eventually the clause was amended by the
insertion of the words "rate made for relief of the poor."
On clause 4, an amendment moved by Lord ROMNEY in-
creasing the term of occupancy required for exercising the
lodger franchise was negatived without a division.
A more important question was raised on this clause by
Lord CAIRNS, who proposed an alteration which would
admit as voters the occupants of rooms in halls and colleges.
This was generally supported by the members of the Go-
vernment, and strongly opposed for vario is reasons by
Lord Grey, Lord Westbury, Lord Abingdon, and Lord
Granville. Eventually, on a division, the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it .. 76
Majority
On the proposal of Lord CAIRNS to make the limit of
the lodger franchise £l5 instead of .£lO,
Lord MALMESBURY intimated on the part of the Go-
vernment his readiness to accept the amendment, but
Lord GRANVILLE earnestly deprecated such a stop,
and reminded the house that if this amendment was car-
ried, all hopes of a settlement of the Reform question
would be scattered to the winds.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said such an altera-
tion would only increase the regret of their lordships at
the absence of Lord Derby, while Lord IlAnDwicicE said
he was glad of a motion to increase the franchise in any
way. He therefore seized with avidity upon the oppor-
tunity of heightening the lodger qualification.
Lord KIMBERLEY opposed and the Duke of RUTLAND
supported the amendment.
The Duke of ARGYLL, while admiring the strength of
the party ties of the Government, wondered at the weak-
ness of their political convictions. If Liberal peers pro•
posed liberalising amendments, they were met by the ob-
jection that in altering the bill they were breaking a coin
pact with the House of Commons, but when a Tory
amendment limiting the franchise which the other house
had agreed to was put forward, it was adopted without
a word of explanation. Such a course on this question
would be regarded by the country as an indication of the
reaction which had already set in.
Lord MALMESBURY defended the course taken by
the Government, and said there was no analogy whatever
between this question of the lodger franchise and that of
the implied compact as to the redistribution of seats.
Lord CARNARVON, though not opposed to the amend-
ment, was not, under all the peculiar circumstances of the
present case, prepared to go so far as to vote for it ; and
Lord RUSSELL thought that by its being carried, and
the qualification raised, a fresh opening would be given to
an agitation for manhood suffrage, and to get rid of any
limit whatever.
After a few words from Lord Ellenborough, Lord Gran-
ville, Lord Shaftesbury, and Lord Groy, who were opposed
to the amendment, and expressed their regret that the Go-
vernment had departed from the text of their bill, a divi-
sion was taken on the original question, that the figure
£lO be retained, when the numbers were—
Contents B9
Non-Contents
Majority —32
The amendment was consequently carried.
After a few words, clause 4 was agreed to.
On clause 5, relating to county property franchise,
Lord lIARROWBY proposed an amendment altering
the copyhold property qualification from £5 to £lO, which
was agreed to by the Lord Chancellor, but op2osed by
Lord Granville.

After a very short discussion, their lordships divided on
the question that clause 5 stand part of the bill, when the
numbers were,—
Contents 56
Non-Contents
Majority —63
Clause 5 was therefore struck out, Clause 6 was agreed
to. The House then resumed, and the other orders of the
day having been disposed of, their lordships adjourned at
half-past 12 o'clock.