The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1866.

Lord Derby's proposition to disfranchise the borough free-
holders, but ho thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
for not pressing his clauses for giving leaseholders county
votes. He considered that the great question of the day
was the allocation of political power, and believing that
the house was nearer a solution of it than it had ever been
before, he should support the motion of the noble lord the
member for King's Lynn. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, what-
ever may be said about fighting in the open day, and upon
the open field, I cannot but congratulate the hon. gentle-
men opposite upon their perfect mastery of the arts of
ambush. (Loud cheers and cries of " Oh, oh.") Ten days
have elapsed since the motion for going into committee
came under discussion, and not until this moment when
the noble lord rose was the gallant party opposite able to
make up its mind as to the next step it would take. (Cheers.)
Ido not complain of that step. (Ironical cheers.) By all
means, if it is thought by the noble lord and my hon. friend
that this is the manner in which the battle of reform is to
be fought, let them persevere. This question requires no
lengthened argument, no debated discussion. The purport
of the motion, if not its purpose, is perfectly plain. At last,
with many efforts, we have got near the point where
something like decisive issues are to be taken ; and then
this new strategy is invented, and kept locked up in the
breasts of those who conceived it, lest it should suffer
from exposure to the open air—a tender and delicate
hot-house plant, not fit for the rude climate of Great
Britain— (loud cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh ")—im-
ported from elsewhere. Sir, my hon friend the mem-
ber for Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) has stated that no one
has a right to charge him with motives of hostility to
reform. Whatever my hon. friend states with regard to
his motives will at all times command from me implicit
credence. It is no part of my duty—it is no part of my
right to investigate the motives of honourable gentlemen
opposite ; but there is a supposition which may, perhaps,
in some degree reconcile the claims of courtesy with those
of truth. My hon. friend may not be hostile to reform,
but he is hostile to our reform. He says there is a fatal
I don't know what he called it.
An H9N. lizadmit—A blot.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, he
said it was a principle. He said that nothing would in-
duce him to sanction a fatal principle which put the con-
stitution in jeopardy, like that of proceeding with the ex-
tension of the franchise, before we had determined upon
the clauses for the redistribution of seats. That, says my
hon. friend, is a fatal heresy ; but that was the principle
of the Reform Bill of 1859, which was brought in by the
Government of Lord Derby, and which received my hon.
friend's continued support. (Cheers.) My hon. friend was
then as now the friend of reform, and he was not then
particular as to the arrangement of clauses, or to the adop-
tion of the principle which he now declares places the con-
stitution in jeopardy. I make no imputation upon my hon.
friend of general hostility to reform. God forbid that I
should do this—(a laugh)—indeed, my hon. friend may
be fanatical on the subject, but certainly he is exceed-
ingly opposed to our Reform Bill. I don't think it
uncharitable to say that he has opposed it by all
the means in his power ; and that he has taken means
which are perfectly effectual for their purpose. I thank
my honourable friend. We understand both the motion
and the reasons for the concealment. There is a great deal
in the speech of the noble lord of that everlasting arguing
in a circle. "Do not," he says, " draw your outline before
you fill in your details." Well, the outline is geographi-
cal ; but the details are human beings. We contend, in
opposition to the noble lord, that it is quite as judicious
to say, "Before you fix the limitation of counties, let us
know what your franchise is to be," as to say, " Before you
fix on your franchise, let us know what is your limitation
of counties." (Hear, hear.) If we are to have these narrow
party objects in view, if we are to endeavour to neutralise
to-morrow the effects of the concessions of to-day by under-
hand or oblique arrangements, then this question of limita-
tion assumes, no doubt, uncommon and transcendent
importance. We say, Trust the nation with power to
enfranchise those of the people whom you deem worthy of
enfranchisement : and having done that the question of
redistribution will be easily dealt with. (Hear, hear.) This
is not a case without a precedent, and in 1832 the prece-
dent was not so successful as might have been desired ; but
hon. gentlemen seem to have a love, which I should have
thought unwise, with reference to their objects, power,
position, and prospects, for the retrial of experiments
which in other times have conspicuously failed. In the
House of Lords, on the 7th of May, 1832, Lord Lyndhurst
made a motion to postpone not only the preamble but the
first or disfranchising clauses of the Reform Bill, till the en-
franchising ones had been dealt with. But what did Lord
Grey say ? He hoped, " that noble lords would not deceive
themselves, for he must say that the motion would be
fatal to the whole bill." As regarded the direct merits of
the motion, he went on to say, " that its effect would be to
escape, evade, and pass by those great decisions on great
issues which had been taken—(cheers) —and to lose the
debate upon the question in an interminable labyrinth of
discussions on the redistribution of seats." But there are
other things to be considered beside the effect of this pro-
posal. My hon. friend says, "What pledge have we that the
Government will not fall back on their original method of
proceeding ?" I suppose my hon. friend thinks the word of
the Government is no pledge. Their word has been given
that they will abide the pleasure and judgment of the house
—that is the pledge they have given. But the Government
will not consent to any motion on a question of this cha-
racter that takes the conduct of the bill out of their hands.
(Cheers.) They have been charged with many things.
Many hard words have been used —naturally, and perhaps
necessarily, used at crises like the present—but there are
no words that would be hard enough to describe their de-
gradation if they were willing to sit helplessly here from
day to day, and leave their Reform Bill to be manipulated
by the hands of a hostile opposition, that, from the first
hour till now, has not ventured to avow its purpose.
(Loud cheer:.) We intend, so far as it depends upon
us, to obtain the judgment of this houlo upea the
important propositions- we have made with respect to
the popular question of this country. That is the en-
deavour we have set before us. Towards that end we
will steadily walk, so long as we are supported by this
house ; and to the judgment of the house we will cheer-
fully bow. I thank the noble lord for raising the issue in
so decisive a form; and he will not find us unwilling to
accept the indications which will bo given by a hostile
vote. (Loud cheers.)
The committee divided, when the numbers were--
For the amendment 260
Against 287-27
The amendment was therefore rejected.
As soon as Mr. Brand, the Government teller, received

from the clerk the paper upon which the number was re-
corded, a loud cheer rose from the Ministerial benches, and
waa continued so long as materially to delay the announce-
ment of the result of the division. When the numbers

were declared the cheer was repeated with increased ardour
and still greater enthusiasm.

Mr. WALPOLE then moved his amendment, substi-
tuting £2O for £ll as the qualification for the county
franchise. In support of the proposition he argued that,
according to "the old lines of the Constitution," property
had always been predominant in the county representa-
tion, and that if the present occupation franchise wore to
be reduced no better resting-place could be chosen than
£2O, which was the jury qualification and the point at
which the house tax commenced. He dwelt on the im-
portance of keeping up a distinction between borough and
county constituencies to preserve the varied character of

the House of Commons, and, referring to a remark of Mr.
Gladstone, asked for some explanation of the nature of the
compact between the Government and the Reforming
party. _ _

Mr. VILLIERS opposed the amendment, and derided
Mr. Walpole's argument as obsolete.
Mr. HUNT argued that the £l4 line was chosen, not so
much to increase the number of county voters (to which
ho had no objection), as to increase it in a particular direc-
tion, and to give an advantage to the urban element. -

In the discussion which followed, the amendment was
supported by Mr. Beresford Hope and Mr. Liddell, and
opposed by Sir E. Buller, Sir F. Crossley, and Mr. Pease.

Mr. ADDERLEY maintained that a £l4 franchise—
added to the borough freeholders—would in the midland
counties make the town voters two-thirds of the consti-
tuencies, thus destroying the balance of the urban and
county elements. But in the absence of any assurance as
to the form in which the Redistribution Bill would pass,
or if it would pass at all, it was impossible satisfactorily to
decide at what figure the franchise should be fixed, and
the real obstructives, therefore, were those who had op-
posed Lord Stanley's motion. Under the circumstances
he intended to vote to omit £l4 from the clause,
without pledging himself to the exact figure to be substi-
tuted.

After some observations from Mr. B. STANHOPE, who
said the bill involved this dilemma—either it would swamp
the agricultural element in counties or would leave large
urban districts unrepresented—and who also refused to
pledge himself to any particular figure,
ib:eetSereniekrdsuG. GREYunaeagebodi etuthopre saide
months
t ht though
ago,the
and
the FranchiseseatEß
iBl l e wassome
obtainto the
a present
single
votetime
utpohenGtohveoprnriinnocniptlehaodf
those bills. (Hear, hear.) Ilitherto the discussion had taken
(placeH (Hear,
earlya r,uponbparteaor.f)mtohAtieointeesrvoetfhneiansgdcielhnatoootry and evasive character.
shouldby had
h have witnessed
thoughtin the
that
there would not so soon have been another attempt to ob-
struct the progress of the bill--(hear, hear)—the former
attempt having been defeated by a decisive majority, and
that the time had now arrived when a definite issue might
be taken. Nothing could be fairer than the issue proposed
by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole); but lion. gen-
tlemen were now trying to wriggle out of that issue, and
the hon. gentleman declared that, though ho should vote
against a £l4 franchise, he would not pledge himself as to
a £2O or a £3O franchise. There was another peculiarity
in the debate. They did not find any gentleman saying
that a man who occupied a house and land of £l4 in the
county was unfit to be entrusted with the county fran-
chise. (Hear, hear,) That would include the upper strata
of the artisan class. But it was said that that would admit
a class so numerous that they ought not to adopt the pro-
posal. The hon. gentleman (Mr. B. Stanhope) seemed
greatly alarmed because lie thought his county consti-

tuency would be overwhelmed with an -urban population.
For his part he did not know whence this large population
in North Lincolnshire was to come. As to the numbers to
be added to the county constituencies it was difficult to
form an accurate estimate, because it was not easy to cal-
culate as to those whose rating was £l2, and whose occu-
pation was £l4, but he believed the number of new elec-
tors would be about 160,000 or 170,000. Many of these
would be in counties where there was a mixed population,
such as South Lancashire, the west riding of Yorkshire,
and Cheshire, where it would be impossible to draw a sharp
line of demarcation between the urban and the rural districts.
The new voters would be unequally distributed ; in some
cases there would be a large increase of voters and in others
comparatively few. In many eases the addition would con-
sist of shopkeepers andothers dependent on the agricultural
interest, and he believed that the extension of the franchise
would in very many cases throw additional power into the
bands of the landlords and the agricultural interest. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Adderley) and the hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Stanhope) objected to the £l4 county franchise,
but they did not say what they would substitute for it. The
right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cam-
bridge laid down something like a principle, because he said
those possessing the VO franchise had to perform certain
duties, but that argument did not hold good in all cases.
The right hon. gentleman had also advanced an argument
which had been used with great effect by Lord Russell in
that house, that there was an essential difference between
the borough and the county qualification, the former being
founded on occupation, and the latter on property. But who
were the first to disturb that principle ? At the time of the
first Reform Bill the first inroad on that principle had been
made by the Chandos clause. Let this proposition be com-
pared with the bill of Lord Derby. The hon. member for
Macclesfield (Mr. Egerton) did not say a word about the
bill which his leaders had brought forward, though Lord
Derby's bill began by subtracting 100,000 freehold voters
from the counties, and reducing the county qualification not
to £l4 but to £lO, which would would go far to swamp
the freeholders. He did not mean to say that the right hon
gentleman was responsible for this, because he knew that
the right hon. gentleman left the Government of Lord
Derby on the question, but the bill brought forward by the
Government of the noble earl assimilated the borough and
the county franchise. It was said that there ought to be
different constituencies, but such a course was not likely
to produce them. It might be very disagreeable to hon.
gentlemen opposite to be reminded of these things—(" No,
no," from the Opposition), but when the Government were
accused of subverting the institutions of the country—
(loud Opposition cheers)—he would remind honourable
gentlemen that their leaders went farther in the same
direction. (No, no, from the Opposition.) He quite agreed
that there were some constituencies of a very mixed cha-
racter, such as that of North Staffordshire. Wherever it
was practicable, they thought that the best test for the
parliamentary borough would be the municipal limits. It
would be impossible to draw a sharp line between the rural
population and the town population. At present they had
not to deal with questions as to a larger disfranchisement
or as to a third member to certain counties or boroughs.
They ought to restrict themselves at present to what was
really the objection to a £l4 county franchise and to a £7
town franchise. One word as to a charge made by the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cam-
bridge against his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, arising no doubt from a total misapprehension
of what had been stated. The right hon. gentleman had
supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated
that ho had entered into some contract or engagement
with the Liberal party by which, if the £l4 and £7 fran-
chises were defeated they would be released from the con-
tract, and that they would be at liberty to propose any
other figures.
Mr. WALPOLE —The note I made of the words was
that the actual engagement between the Reform party and
the Government would be at an end.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, but
sat down in consequence of loud cries of order from the
Opposition.
Sir G. GREY said what he understood his right hon.
friend to state, and what was the fact, that the Government,
without any previous contract or private engagement, had,
on their own responsibility, proposed what they had thought
it their duty to propose. The great party of advanced Re-
formers who advocated franchises of £lO and £6 had recog-
nised in the bill an honest attempt to settle the question, and
had determined to support the bill. There was no contract
or enagement, but of course his right hon. friend said that
if the bill was defeated it would be open to them to propose
any other arrangement for the settlement of the question.
The Government thought that this bill offered a fair prospect
of a settlement, and they deprecated any attempt to put off
the question to a future time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should like to know the words he had used, and which the
right hon. gentleman said he had taken a note of.

Mr. WALPOLE said the words were, " The virtual en-
gagement with the reforming party will be at an end.'
(Loud cries of "Hear " from the Opposition.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that his
right hon. friend would see that he was wrong in his con-
struction of the words ho had quoted. Those words con-
tained no mention of any engagement or contract on the
part of the Government. What he had spoken of was a
virtual engagement with Parliament and the public, and
not with the Government. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELL—I do not think that so very important
a question as this should be decided on casual expressions
used on either side. What we have to do is to decide what
is best for the country. Thesa personal controversies about
comparatively small points are of little or no importance in
reference to the question before us. The Secretary for the
Home Department has alluded to the hill of 1859 ; but it
is no answer to the right hon. member for the University
of Cambridge to throw at his head the Reform Bill of Lord
Derby's Government. On the otbor hand it is no answer
to us to throw at our heads the views of the right hon.
meinber for the University of Cambridge. We aro not an-
swerable for those views ; and though 1 am ready to vin-
dicate the policy of Lord Derby's Government, that is a
question of a very secondary interest at this moment. What
we have to decide is what is the policy necessary now, and
not to enter into endless recriminations. There wore un-
successful Reform Bills before that of Lord Derby's Go-
vernment, :and Reform Bills the provisions of which were
entirely inconsistent with those of the present pleasure. The
proposition of Lord Derby's Government was not made
on the sole condition referred to in the present discussion
that freeholders in boroughs should vote where their pro-
perty was situated. The house was told over and over again
that our propositions must. be taken as a whole, and it was
avowed that one great consideration for proposing that the
county qualification should be £lO was that there should be
the same franchise in boroughs. (Hear,hear.) Whether our
views wore right or wrong they were distinctly stated. But
to return to the question before us. What we want—and I
believe I express the opinion of all sensible men in the house
—(a laugh)—is that there should be a bona fide franchise.
(Hear.) We say that those who exercise the franchise in
counties—where interests and industry are in the county—
should not be interfered with hymen who have no interest
in the county. We are told that we want to expel from the
counties the whole of the urban element, and the Secretary
of State has to-night repeated the charge. What I want to
impress on the committee is that before settling the proper
franchise for counties we should clearly understand what
counties are. The Secretary of State said that we wished
to enfranchise every town with 5,000 inhabitants. No
human being ever made such a proposition. (Hear, hear.)
Before you settle the proper fmnchise for counties you should
understand what those counties mean. We do not under-
stand from the speech of the Secretary of State that the Go-
vernment has a clear idea of what the population of the
counties is. (Hear.) If you throw out all the population of
the unrepresented towns up to 5,000 you still have in the
counties 500 unrepresented towns with a population under
5,000 ; and irrespective of these 500 towns you have a vil-
lage population equal in amount to all the population of
the represented towns. We have heard a great deal of the
population of Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and Shef-
field, but I say that the population of those great towns
and cities, and of all the great towns together, does not
exceed the village population of England irrespective of
the non-represented towns and the 500 towns with a popu-
lation under 5,000. What, therefore, can be more absurd
than the statement we have justlistened to from the Secr-
etary of State, that if such arrangements as were intimated
about restricting the exercise of the franchise by free-
holders were adopted we should really have a population
for our constituencies consisting solely of an agricultural
population without any urban element in it ? It is not the
fact. Those who are attempting to settle this question
with such general opinions are acting in the dark, although
endeavouring
to arrange affairs to their own satisfaction,
because they are not sufficiently acquainted with the cir-
cumstances with which they presume to deal. (Hear,hear.)
In dealing with the population of counties you have to rest
on certain accurate ideas of what the general character of
the county population is. You will find in the counties of
England that half the population—half the nation—is in
the counties, and that half of the population of England
should have secured to it the fair and legitimate exercise
of their suffrage. (Hear, hear.) To a certain and great
degree the population of counties possess that privilege
No one grudges it. We are told night after night that we
are representatives of farmers and farm labourers. Grave,
very grave, Secretaries of State tell us this. I have the
honour to be the representative of a constituency which
may fairly be described as being a completely rural con-
stituency, because in Buckinghamshire every town is re-
presented. What are the facts of the case as to the pro-
perty qualification in that county ? In a constituency ex-
ceeding 6,000 what is the number of voters under a £5O
qualification that aro on the register for the county of
Bucks ? 1,200. Well, in a perfectly rural constituency
that is only a fifth. Who are the others? They are free-
holders. And where do they reside ? Why they constitute a
part of those great village populations, or live in towns with
a population under 5,000, which are unhappily not taken
into consideration by right hon. gentlemen opposite. If this
element of the population is to be invested with the fran-
chief it is a point to be argued, and one onwhich we should
have a most distinct understanding, whether,, if this popu-
lation be invested with the franchise, they should not have
the privilege of exercising it in defence of their own pro-
perty, industry, and interests, and not be interfered with

by comparative strangers who have no sympathy with
them and their interests. (Hear, hear.) It is no answer to
say that in Lord Derby's bill this was not done, or that it
was impracticable. What we have now to do is to do the
thing completely and satisfactorily. (Hear.) The question
of the boundaries of towns should be fairly and completely
dealt with by any minister who attempts to settle this
question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer night after
night made admissions on this question, but coupled them
with elaborate descriptions of the difficulty of satisfying
them. No doubt there is difficulty, but it is a difficulty
which a government undertaking to deal with the question
ought to and must encounter. (Hear, hear.) We have
a right to expect that the question of boundaries should
be completely and satisfactorily settled. (Hear, hear.) We
may be told that the Government of Lord Derby did not
meet in as large a spirit as they might have done, the ques-
tion of unrepresented towns. But hon. gentlemen forget
that the census of 1861 has appeared sinee the Government
of Lord Derby. (Hear.) We now know a great deal more
about the condition and population of the country, and the
manner in which the population is employed, than we did
in 1858 or 1859. (Hear, hear. And are we not to profit by
that valuable information? We know that a number of con-
siderable towns have arisen in Englandof much larger pot
pulations than are described in the census of 1861, and it is
absolutely necessary that at a time when we are attempt-
ing to settle the amount and character of the county
franchise we should have a clear conception as to the man-
ner in which political power is to be distributed in this
country. I admit that when the Government brought in their
bill for the Redistribution of Seats tbey did not give a dis-
tinct programme of the manner in which the claims of the
country would be met. It was most unsatisfactory, but it
was clear and definite. The Government night after night
have given up every point on that head. (Hear, hear.) Ac-
cording to the Secretary of State, the whole affair is now in
mihifrus. (Hear, hear.) There is not a question respecting
the direct representation of large bodies of people not now
represented that is not now completely unsettled and thrown
upon the table for discussion. (Hear.) We have no plan
of the Government to guide us as to what their views are ;
and until we have some complete idea of it I am totally in-
capable of entering upon the discussion whether the county
franchise should be £5O, £2O, £l4, or £lO. I should be per-
fectly ready myself to support a £lO qualification for coun-
ties if it were a bona fide qualification. And if the inhabi-
tants of counties—whatever their pursuits or callings—if
that moiety of the English nation which is described by
Secretaries of State as a collection of farmers and farm la-
bourers, are permitted to enjoy their franchise without in-
terference from strange elements, or are directly repre-
sented in this house, lam the last person in the world who
would shrink from a large and liberate estimate of the ques-
tion. But as now proposed by the Government, if the
boundaries of unrepresented towns are not to be settled—if
the great industrial communities which have arisen since the
last Reform Bill are not to be directly represented in this
house, I say you may fix upon a franshise for the counties, I
do not care whether it is £lO, £l4, or £2O, which may end
in giving you a representation for that part of the English
nation which will not be a fair and just representation of its
property, feelings, industry, or interests. (Cheers.) That
is the question before us. I think the fact we have just
listened to is a strong argument in favour of the amend-
ment of my noble friend the member for King's Lynn this
evening. (Hear, hear.) I consider myself that it is utterly
impossible to deal with this question, except in a factious
and harried way (laughter), until we know what the Go-
vernment are going to do particularly.
Sir G. GREY— I did not say that we were factious. (A
laugh.)
Mr. DISRAELI—I say it is impossible to deal with the
question except in a factious and hurried way unless we
have some plan from the Government. (Hear, and laughter.)
Those who sneer at these observations will in a year's time
find out that they are perfectly true. I maintain that you
cannot settle the amount satisfactorily of your county
to deal with the large unrepresented towns. So far as I un-
derstand the Government are going to do nothing. The
allusion made to the subject by the Secretary of State is
absurd, for he assumes that there are towns with 5,000
inhabitants which are not represented. I never heard such
a thing. On the contrary there are many towns of 5,000 in-
habitants or more whichgrow naturally out of the industry
of the counties and ought to be represented by county
members ; but there are large towns and distinct commu-
nities which ought to have a distinct representation in this
. house; and if they have not they necessarily prevent the
legitimate representation of the county population. There
are, for example, the manufactories. What we, object to is
that in addition to those manufactories there should be a
process of manufacturing county votes. (Laughter.) The
population of the counties does not, so we are told, consist
merely of farmers and farm labourers. I showed that these
farmers and farm labourers amounted to 2,000,000, and if
you enfranchised the unrepresented towns, and if you
leave the 500 towns under 5,000 of a population, you would

still have the population in the counties equal to the po-
pulation of the great represented towns. (Cheers.) I say
that the counties have a right, at whatever limit you fix the
franchise, to exercise it for the protection of their property

and their industry (cheers), and they have a right not to be
interfered with, in such case as I mentioned before, where

one-half of the population of the enormous towns, which
are as much connected with the counties as London is with

Westminster, marched into the county town and voted for
the members for the county, although in every point of
view, in everything that could create sympathy, in the in-
vestment of capital, in the employment of industry, in their
political opinions, in all their municipal sentiments, they
are entirely in accordance with the rest of the towns that
have the privilege of sending members to Parliament. I
say, therefore, under these circumstances, it happens fre-
quently in this country that one-half of the town popula-
tion, because it is not within the Parliamentary boundary,

returns the members for the counties. This is not poli-
tically just, and that which is not political justice must end
in political disaster. (Cheers.) All we say is that if her
Majesty's Government will come forward with a distinct
proposition to give to the population of the counties the
fair exercise of the franchise, I have no doubt that any

proposition that they may make for reducing the franchise
will be treated by us with the utmost consideration—
(cheers)—but they make no proposition ; and if you greatly
reduce the franchise for the counties under existing circum-
stances, if you leave all these towns with distinctive inte-
rests of their own unrepresented, and if you do not in a

complete manner doal with the question of Parliamentary

boundaries of represented towns, whatever figures you fix
upon for your Parliamentary franchise in counties will end
in disappointment and disaster. (Loud cheers.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-31r. Dod.

son—Having been patiently beard in the beginning of the

evening, I shall only detain the committee for a very short
time ; but we are approaching a division of very great
importance, upon the issue of which, I do not conceal

wo look with great anxiety. The character of this measure,'

which, in my judgment, is capable of being a satisfactory
settlement of a great constitutional question is involved to
a considerable degree in this division ; and I therefore take
the liberty of noticing one or two things with regard to the
course of this debate. So far as I followed the debate I
have not heard any one deny that the persons whom it is
proposed to enfranchise in virtue of the £l4 occupation in
counties are, taken as a body, fitted for the exercise of their
franchise. This being so, I beg to observe that it is a fact
of the most vital importance, The right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire, much to his- credit, has
upon former occasions deprecated the nicely-calculated less
or more of this or that particular number, and has said
distinctly, " I look to the fitness of those you are going to
enfranchise." I beg the committee to observe the ac-
ceptance of this principle from this source of high autho-
rity. But the objections which have been taken are two,
and those who took them appear to be moved by distinct
and separate lines of action. There is the objection of the
right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire,
who repeated, I do not mean in terms, but in. concurrence
with most of those on his side who preceded him, that be-
fore you settle the franchise for the counties you must
clearly understand what the counties mean. Again, the
right hon. gentleman said, " We must know what the Go-
vernment propose to do with reference to the large unre-
presented towns." Well, what I say is, that if we are to go
on in this way we are in danger- of arguing in a circle.
The demand of the right honourable gentleman would be
a perfectly fair one if the business of the redistribution of
seats was one which the Crown could settle by its own
prerogative. He might then require that we should lay down
in a complete manner our proposals. But when the right
hon. gentleman says he wants to know what we are going
to do, the meaning is, not what we are going to do, but what
the House of Commons is going to do after hearing our pro-
posals. I am surprised at the argument of the hon. member
for North Staffordshire, who argued that it was impossible
for him to say anything of the county franchise until he
knew what was to be done about the boundaries of the
boroughs and unrepresented places. Thus the right hon.
member reverses his own course in 1859. (No, no.) Why
the right hon. gentleman then supported a bill which was to
deal with county franchise anterior to any settlement of the
borough boundaries ; and that which he would make a
mountain of now was then a molehill, and ho then found
no difficulty in swallowing the camel though ho now can-
not swallow the gnat. (Cheers.) The house cannot legis-
late on all parts of this subject in one and the same man-
ner, and if everybody is to make an objection to every pro-
posal because every other proposal is not then settled, the
result will be that no progress can be made. (Cheers.) This
is the advantage of all the stages in a bill, that at ono time
you examine its principle, at another you examine it in
detail. Upon this question of the county representation the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) departs from the old
rules of the constitution, and sets up instead the distinc-
tion between urban and rural districts, a purely modern in-
vention. This question divides itself into two particulars.
He says we have done nothing that is satisfactory. We
have sacrificed a constitutional principle, that is, the exten-
sion of the voting for counties in respect of freeholds in
boroughs to leaseholds. But the question of unrepresented
towns appears to me to be one of no very great magnitude.
If you make some extension of the number of towns to be
enfranchised—and I have ',already intimated an opinion it
would be well that we should proceedfurther in this direc-
tion—but it would be absurd there should be any of those
wholesale representations of which the right hon. gentle-
man gave us some idea, by which there would be a town of

50,000, or 60,000, or 80,000, or 90,000 inhabitants with one
member. It is impossible for us to give the least coun-
tenance to an idea of this kind—(cheers)—but as regards
the representation of a number of large towns, that is a
question which we propose to consider. And let it not be
supposed that we have abandoned our intentions with regard
to the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. My right hon.
friend the member for Cambridge Universitywill understand
that I have not the slightest intention of imputing to him
any inaccuracy of quotation. I feel confident that the
words were as I stated, and that they did not contain any
compact. There was no mention of a compact, or under-
standing, or anything else, between the advanced party and
the Government ; we spoke of the engagement which the
Government made with Parliament and the public when we
took a certain course at a certain juncture. My right hon.
friend has not made any complaint against the £l4 county
franchise ; but he says he could not see anything in the na-
ture Of it to make it a stopping place. Well, I answer that
in the first. place the £2O will not be a stopping place any
more than £l4. He does not give us the jury franchise; that
in counties, as I understand, is not a rating franchise, but
one of £2O and £3O respectively—does he propose that ?
Mr. WALPOLE—The second part of my motion shows
a rating or assessed amount.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Does he
propose a rating franchise ? Let us be clear upon the point.
Mr. WALPOLE—I say the jury franchise, or a rating
upon which the person is assessed to the relief of the poor,
or to the inhabited house duty.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—My right
hon.friend is doubtless aware thathe does not copy the exact
words of the Jury Act. I now understand him to say that he
does give the jury franchise and a rating franchise. This it,
should be understood is a proposition that will raise the
county occupation franchise from£l4 to bet ween.£23 and£24.
That is not a jury franchise at all if it is not a rating fran-
chise, for in no other point is it a jury franchise, and a worse
franchise than on the house duty I cannot imagine, for the
duty itself is, as it were, a casual one, and why it should
stop at £2O it would puzzle any economist to understand.
The Government entirely decline to recognise the jury fran-
chise, for if adopted for the counties it must be recognised
in the boroughs, and the result will be to land as in house-
hold suffrage, because household qualification for jurors is
that adopted in boroughs having their own quarter sessions.
The Government have proposed the £l4 franchise with the
earnest intention of making it a complete plan, and there
is reason for considering that the £l4 franchise will be a
stopping place, as it as nearly as possible describes thepoint
where it completes the enfranchisement of all the middle
classes ; and further, this figure substantially works well
in Ireland. But the clause before the house is a capital
member of the bill, and the proposal of my right hon. friend
essentially mars and maims the effect of the clause. On that
ground I earnestly entreat the house to negative this pro-
posal. (Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.")
_ .

_ .
Mr. HENLEY said he had listened with great atteation to
all that had been said by the right hon. gentleman, and he
was the only one who gave anything like a reason for the
£l4 franchise. Every one seemed to think that what would
be done now would be a settlement of the question. It was
said the house had assented to a £lO franchise, but that was
not the case. What was the security they had that this
would be a permanent settlement from the advanced re-
formers ? Would they accept this £l4 as a settlement?
No. At all their meetings they distinctly stated that the
Government bill was only a step in the right direction and
an instalment, and one hon. member of the party had echoed
that sentiment in the debate, by saying he should prefer
£6 10s. to £l4. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had re-
ferred to the £l2 rating in Ireland, but that was not the
same as £l4 occupation in England. The circumstances
of the two countries were quite different. Their position
as to money's worth was dissimilar, and the man rated
at £l2 in Ireland would belong to a superior class to
the one having a £l4 occupation in England. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman asked whether those holding
£l4 occupations ought not to have the franchise ? That
was not the question. The question was whether that
sum would not introduce so large a number of the occu-
pying voters as to outnumber and outweigh the property
qualification for the counties. (Cheers.) That was the
real question to be considered. The right hon. gentleman
said that it had been stated in the house that a £lO occu-
pier was a loyal man. He did not believe that they could
judge the loyalty of a man by the number of pounds he
had, as a man with no pounds at all was often more loyal
than one with a great many. What he looked at was this

—that three-sevenths of the county electors would be in-
troduced by the occupation franchise. That was a serious
matter, and too large a proportion, and would outweigh
the present qualification in counties. He would just say a
few words as to the amendment. As he understood the
amendment, it was this. The right hon. gentleman
thought that taxation of some sort or other ought to attach
to the franchise. Now, the Govetnment was getting rid of
that principle. (Conservative cheers.) They were getting
rid of rating, which used to be the foundation of house-
hold suffrage in the towns—the old scot and lot franchise ;
all that meant payment; and the franchise followed pay-
ment. His right hon. friend proposed two things. He
said a man who lived in a £2O house ought to have a
county vote, and he (Mr. Henley) agreed with him. The
next thing was the jury franchise. That was not based on
house alone ; it might consist of house and land. But it
was an occupation franchise, with rating to the poor to
the amount of £2O. This led to two parties who ought to
have the county franchise; and whether we took the jury
franchise or the gross estimated rental or rateable value, it
was an occupation franchise to the amount of £2O. Such
a franchise, he believed, would not extend the constituen-
cies more than 40,000. He thought that would give a fair
addition to the present occupation franchise for counties.
(Hear.) He should support most cordially the amendment
of his right hon. friend Mr. Walpole. (Cries of "Divide.")
The committee then divided on the question that the
word "fourteen" stand part of the question—
The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes

Majority

~ 297
~ 283

...-14

The announcement was received with loud Ministerial
cheers. The house presented a most exciting scene. Hon.
members were standing crowded together some way within
the bar, on the floor of the house, and the cries of " Bar,
bar," intermingled with " Adjourn," and " Report pro-
gress," prevented the Chairman from being heard for some
seconds. Amidst the confusion that prevailed,

Lord CRANBORNE, from the floor of the house, moved
that tho Chairman report progress; and Mr. BAGGEfrom
the side gallery moved the adjournment of the house.
The CHAIRMAN, however, put the question of report-
ing progress, which was received with loud cheers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
considering the hour, 25 minutes past twelve o'clock, he
could not resist the motion. (Loud cries of " What day ?"
" When ?") but he proposed to resume the committee on
this day (Friday).
The announcement was received with loud Ministerial
cheers, and cries of " No, no ; on Monday," from the Op-
position side of the house.
The CHAIRMAN said what he had to do was to put the
motion for reporting progress. It was for the house to
decide to what day.

The motion for reporting progress was then agreed to,
and the house resumed.
The SPEAKER having again taken tho chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
resumption of the committee on this day (Friday), which
was met with loud cries of "No, no," and "On Monday."
The SPEAKER then put the question, amidst the con-
fusion that prevailed, when

Lord ROYSTON moved the adjournment of the corn.
mittee until Monday. (Loud cheers.)
The SPEAKER again put the question.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, and
amidst the excitement that prevailed said that the Govern-
ment had not interfered with Tuesday of late, that ban
the day devoted to private and independent members. But
this was a different case. The Government were responsible
for Fridays subject to certain rules of the house. Inde-
pendent members of the house,as was perfectly well known,
had a right to make their own motions on going into com-
mittee of supply, but when they were disposed of the Go-
vernment were responsible for the order of business. He
found from the paper of to-morrow that the notices of
motion, which were given on going into committee of sup-
ply, were of a character not likely to occupy any length of
time. That being so, the Government were responsible for
the disposal of the rest of the evening, and it was not their
intention to waste any portion of time. (Loud cheers.) So
far as depended upon them, they would move the house to
employ their time in the progress of the Reform Bill.
(Cheers.)
On the motion being put there were strong expressions
of dissent, when
Mr. DISRAELI said the proposition of the Government
did not in any way interfere with the privileges of private
members. There would be the motion that the house go
into committee of supply, when any gentleman might bring
on any motion upon the paper or any other motion ; but at
the same time he had no doubt they would confine them-
selves to those motions of which they had given notice.
The proposition of the Government did not at all interfere
with them, and it would be unreasonable to interfere
with the fair prerogative of the Government. (Hear, hear.)
He was quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would not keep them to any very late hour.
The motion for the adjournment until to-night (Friday)
was then agreed to.
STANDARD OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND
COINAGE COMMITTEE.

This bill passed through committee.
NATIONAL GALLERY ENLARGEMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION
ABOLITION BILL.

Sir C. O'LOGHLEN moved that the house go into com-
mittee on this bill.

Mr. WHITESIDE appealed to the house and the Go-
vernment not.to press so important a measure at that late
hour (a quarter before one o'clock).
Sir C. O'LOGHL EN said the principle of the measure
having been affirmed by the house, he must press his mo-
tion.

Mr. NV HITESIDE then moved the adjournment of the
debate.

The house thereupon divided, and the numbers were—
For the adjournment
Against it
The announcement of the numbers was received with
seme laughter.
The SPEAKER then announced that at that hour of the
night (five minutes to one), and as one-half the house was
indisposed to proceed with the bill, he would give his cast-
ing vote for the adjournment. (Renewed laughter.)
THE FINSBURY ESTATE BILL.
Mr. AYRTON having moved the second reading of this

bill.
Mr. BRUCE said he would not oppose the motion, but
he believed the bill ought not to pass without considerable
modifications. By the measure one-half of the increased
value of the Finsbury estates would be devoted to the par
ment of curates, but he thought it would be better to ar
ply the money to the endowment of new districts.
On the motion of an Hon. MEMBER, the house wts
counted, and there being only 22 members present, an ad-
journment took place at five minutes past one.