The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

fcrdshire, Wolverhampton, 2,383; in WarWickshire, Bii-
mingham, 1,910; In Yorkshire, Bradford, 2,194; Leeds,
3,089; Sheffield, 1,991."
It appears to me to be a great public injury to take these
men away from the counties, thus to deprive the eoturtiee ttf
that liberal and commercial chttratter Wilibli they wotild
otherwise have, ord.to Chailgt their social and, perhaps,
political bias: Sirth is the first consequence of the present
bill, yet there is another of still greater importance,—viz.,
you thereby enable persons of landed property to obtain a
power by which the small boroughs mad bb flOoded with
fagot votes. (Hear, beer%) Let rile here notice the
change which Mile Made in 1832. In many of the small
boroughs previous to that time the right of voting was
by burgage tenure or freeholds, and those freeholds were
entirely dependent upon, or, at all events, attached to,
the patrons of the boroughs. By such means grew up
that state of things which existed before the Reform Bill,
when there were so many boroughs properly called nomi-
nation. What has been the character of many of those
boroughs since 1833 ? In some of them there has been great
influence exercised, and the landowners have had much to
say in the election of members; but, at the same time, the
right of voting being in £lO occupiers has been everywhere
a check to the former power of the great proprietors, and the
electors have given their votes with a certain degree of
regard, no doubt, to those who recommended candidates to
them, but also with a determination to know what the
opinions of those candidates were. (Hear, hear.) The
gallant general the Min niter for War told us the other
day that in Huntingdon he was qUite sure an hon. friend
of mine (the member for Finsbury) would have no chance
of being elected. There are many other boroughs in the
country where the gallant general himself would have no
chance of being elected—(a laugh)—because his politics are
not the politics of the inhabitants of those places ; but im-
mediately you say. that 40s. freeholds may be formed to any
extent in small boroughs you at once destroy what re-
mains of their independence, and you restore to them
their old character of nomination boroughs. (Hear,
her.r.) You would not only have that which prevailed before
the Reform Bill, when in many instances the entire com-
mand of the boroughs belonged to the landowners, but you
would have those contests which used to go on in many
places, when two great proprietors—peers, perhaps—fought
for Parliamentary influence, when one made 100 fagot votes
and the other 120, and so the battle was continued until the
fate of the borough was decided. I think, therefore, that
the first proposition of the bill is to a great extent a repeal
of the Reform Act. (Cheers.) It provides for the revival
of abuses which the Reform Act was intended to extin-
guish. (Hear, hear.) But it is not true that the whole of
the smaller boroughs are under the influence of persons
like Lord Sandwich and others, who happen to have pro-
perty in the neighbourhood. Many of them are entirely in-
dependent. I might name as one the borough of Liskeard.
It is a very small borough. It was former?y under the in •
finence of a noble family ; but it has returned since the
Reform Act Mr. Charles Buller, one of the most distin-
guished members of the house. (Hear, hear.) He was re-
turned by the free voice of the electors, and I believe the
present member was also returned by the free election of
the constituency. But immediately you pass the present
bill—which I hope will never be the case—(cheers)—you
will enable the gentlemen who have land in that neighbour-
hood to create a number of freehold votes, and thereby en-
tirely extinguish the free choice of the comparatively small
number of independent electors. I believe the borough is
seven miles in length, and therefore there would be ample
room and opportunity to create freeholds of that kind.
(Hear, hear.) Hence, I say, the first proposition of the bill
is a great injustice. It is not an extension of the suffrage.
It is an act of violence by which you deprive men of votes
which they and their family have held, perhaps, for hun-
dreds of years—rights which they have exercised since the
reign of Henry VI., except during the short period of the
usurpation of Cromwell—for I believe that in modern times
no Parliament has sat to which members have not been re-
turned by the 40s. freeholders in counties. Such being the
case, you are now asked to do that which is unjust in itself,
which is very impolitic in itself, by attempting in these
days to revive those nomination boroughs that have been
changed in character by the Reform Act. But I shall be
told tat Parliament will interfere with the revival of these
unjust and predominating influences. I believe that is quite
true, but then it is only a step to a further change. What
will that change be ? It will clearly be one to electoral dis-
tricts, for you will have already taken away that which is
the great impediment to a division of the country into elec-
toral districts, the difference between counties and boroughs.
(Hear, hear.) You will have small boroughs of 5,000 or
6,000 inhabitants returning members entirely at the beck of
the landed proprietors, the creators of borough freeholds,
and you will have, on the other hand, divisions of counties
with a population of 95,030. The boroughs will be called
nomination and corrupt, and it will be said " Let us join
5,000 to the 95,000, and divide the whole into two districts
of 50,000 each, and thus obtain a fair and equitable division
of electoral power." (Hear, hear.) lam not going to
argue for electoral divisions—l own I love the old
divisions of counties, cities, and boroughs. (Hoar,
hear.) For my part, I have no wish that places like
Winchester, Salisbury, Guildford, and Chichester should
only be made parts of counties, instead of towns returning
represontatives. (Hear, hear.) But I say, if that is your
wish—if the present Conservative Government wish to have
electoral divisions, which the hon. member for Birmingham
denied that it was his object to have, being afraid of being
thought too great an innovator if he proposed such a thing
—(laughter)—but if such is the object of the Government,
then let us arrive at that end at once ; and do not, in re-
spect to these small boroughs, let us go through this pro-
cess of nomination, corruption, and degradation, which must
excite complaint and agitation in the country some eight or
ten years hence, only to end in some violent process, or by
then making electoral districts. (Hear, hear.) Let us, I
repeat, rather have them proposed at once, and to give to
London 50 or 60 members, to which the metropolis would be
entitled under such a system. (Hear, and laughter.) Do
not leave us to arrive at that end by a process which must
create general agitation and discontent. (Cheers.) In
stating this argument, which appears to me decisive against
the proposal now before the house, and having adverted to
the process, which I think is sure to happen, if such a bill
as the present be carried, I cannot but strengthen my argu-
ment by a very high authority, the same as was quoted the
other evening by the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Cambridge. Some five years ago the
Government of that day proposed to introduce a bill to
.reform the representation of the people. The Earl of Derby
immediately took the alarm ; he thought that some dreadful
project was in contemplation—something dangerous to the
institutions of the country, and I will venture to read to the
house what was stated by that noble lord, as the authority
is so high, the expression so clear, and the argument, as I
think, so conclusive. Lord Derby said :
" I beg that your lordships will not lose sight of this, that
from the earliest periods of the Parliamentary history of
this country there have been two great divisions of consti-
tuencies, and it is upon due weight being given to each of
these two that the whole balance of the constitution in the
House of Commons depends."
Then, after stating the distinction, he says :
" That distinction is as old as the earliest period of our
historY. It is not a new distinction introduced at the time
of the Reform Bill ; but it is a distinction which at the
time of the Reform Bill in 1831 and 1832 was recognised,
and to a certain extent was even extended ; because one of
the main alterations with regard to the franchise, in addi-
tion to extending it beyond the corporations, which had in
some boroughs usurped the place of the inhabitants at
large, was, that it was given to a great mass of rated house-
holders ; and, at the same time, in order to draw more
clearly the distinction between the two classes of represen-
tation, the non-resident freemen were disfranchised in re-
gard to boroughs; while residence was not considered ne-
cessary with regard to the county franchise. Property was
then made the basis of representation, number and resi-
dence were the basis of representation with regard to
boroughs. • • • Ido fillet that the Government in the
measures they are about to introduce will not attempt to
break down this old, well-founded, and most ithportant dis-
tinction. If they do so for the purpose of removing any
apparent anomaly, and diminishing the inequality of num-
bers,, or of introducing any fanciful regularity, they will
entail much more serious consequences in the total altera-
tion and subversion of the principles of the representation
of this country, and the alteration of the distribution of
powers, and they will derive no advantage from any pos-
sible establishment of a system apparently more symme-
trical, but not containing the elements of real power and
real convenience which are comprised in the present system,
and which form one of the main balances of the consti-
tution "

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from Bath, in favour of allowing Protestant Dissenters to
administer trust funds of endowed grammar schools.
Viscount DUNGANNON presented several petitions
against the Marriage_Law Amendment Bill.

-Lord OVERSTONE pmented several petitions in
fax our of legalising the marriage with a deceased wife's
sister. The noble lord said he had already presented seve-
ral petitions from the City of London, signed by the mem-
bers of the corporation, bankers, merchants, and other in-
fluential persons, to a similar effect; and now the petition
he held in his hand was from the united body of Protestant
Dissenters of the three denominations.

The Bishop of RIPON presented—Petitions against the
unconditional repeal of church rates.

LEASES IN IRELAND.
The Earl of BANDON asked whether it was the in-
tention of the Government to introduce any bill for facili-
tating- the granting of leases in Ireland ?
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE said the Attorney-
General for Ireland was at present engaged in framing a
bill en the subject referred to by the noble lord.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES BILL.
This bill passed through committee without amendments'
and was ordered to be reported on Thursday next.
Lord LYNDHURST thought that the bill ought not
to be forwarded so hastily.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had no objection
to postpone the third reading of the bill until his noble
friend the Lord Chief Justice was in his place,
although he knew his noble friend entirely approved
of all its provisions. He did not see any objection to the
bill being reported on Thursday, and he would not move
the third reading until Lord Campbell was present.

MUTINY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This bill was also read a second time.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
CONVICT PRISONS ABROAD BILL,
This bill passed through committee.
. _ _

MANOR COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill was reperted with amendments.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time, and passed :
East Suffolk Railway ; Lands Improvement Company ; and
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Markets and Pier.
Tho following private bills were considered and ordered
for third reading :—Glasgow Corporation Water;
Lynn Borough and Port and Harbour Improvement ;
Lianidlocs and Newtown Railway; Londonderry Bridge;
and the Chichester Harbour Embankment.

(Hear, hear.) I ask, then, how it is, Lord Derby being
now in office and having to introduce a Reform Bill, that
one of the first things he does is to frame his bill on the
entire destruction of that distinction which he said was
necessary for the balance of the constitution ? (Cheers.)
How is it that he tells us now, through his organs in this
house, that while professing to improve our representative
system, he intends to subvert that which he thought neces-
sary for the constitution in 1854 ? (Hear, hear.) It is
quite obvious, as the right hon. member for Cambridge
University said in his letter to Lord Derby, that if I or the
noble lord the member for Tiverton had introduced such a
plan no man would have been steadier in his opposition to
it than the Earl of Derby, who would have told you that it
was an utter subversion of the institutions of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore I think that the first clause of
the bill contains that which will be injurious, and not an
improvement to our institutions. I think it contains that
which will lead, in the first place, to great discontent on
the part of the inhabitants of towns now being freeholders,
but who, according to the bill, are to be transferred from
the counties to the boroughs. In the next place, I think it
will lead to the creation of a great power of nomination in
many of the boroughs which it is proposed to preserve, and
in which no such power absolutely exists at present ; and,
in the third place, it will, in my opini9n, lead to such dis-
content that the only remedy for the evils you have inflicted
—the only resource from the mischief you have done—will
be to resort to electoral districts, which no man is now pre-
pared to
.propose, and which I consider a total subversion
of the existinr, representative system. (Hear, hear.) Ido
not wish to detain' the house longer than necessary, and I
come now to the second part of the amendment which I
have taken the liberty to place on the notice paper. While
there is a total alteration in the basis of our representative
system, such as no one ever proposed, and such as Lord
Grey and his colleagues were praised for not attempting in
1831, no change is made in regard to that which, I own,
appears to me to be a necessary provision in any reform
bill. (Hear, hear.) You destroy what is ancient, but you
do not make provision for what is new. By no means.
Every man will admit that since the Reform Bill, which,
with great and not overdue caution, placed the franchise
for boroughs and cities in the occupants of £lO houses,
great progress in knowledge and capacity has been
made by the working classes. (Hear, hear,) Let us con-
sider a little what it is that is the real basis on;which you
should rest the representation of the cities and boroughs.
It is the custom in this country, different from that of some
ancient Stales—and I think a very wise usage—to place
powpr in hands which are thought fitted to hold it. You do
not say that every man that might come into a room where
a trial is [going on should have a vote on the question
' whether the persons under trial should be condemned or
not. On the contrary, you say that there are certain per-
sons occupying houses of a certain value, who will be fitted
as a jury to condemn or acquit their countrymen. You do
not allow a man brought up for trial, perhaps for his life,
to say, " I require to be tried by my fellows and equals,
and these men are above my fortune." On the contrary,
you say that you must have persons fitted for the duty,
with capacity to understand what the case is, and, after
hearing the evidence and charge of the judge, to give a fair
verdict. So with regard to the judge himself and almost
every functionary in this country, you decide what are the
conditions and qualifications which make men fitted for
certain functions. For this reason, and in conformity with
this spirit of our institutions, I have always opposed any
proposition for universal or, as it is now called, manhood
suffrage. With respect to a great portion of the working
people, though many are well fitted to take part in the poli-
tical questions of the day, they are liable to be misled by
delusions, and if they should be totally indifferent, that
circumstance would give rise to great venality in our elec-
tions. There are men among that body, perhaps, who
would consider it not of much importance to themselves
whether there existed protection or free trade, religious
liberty or ptrsecution, and they would give their votes ac-
cording to their own immediate interests. Therefore it is
of the utmost importance to the State that you should and

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 1859.

men fitted by their station and capacity to give their votes
for members of Parliament, for in the right choice of the
members "of this house depends the right conduct "of
affairs.' (Hear, hear,) But when you say this, can you
stijf that ainee the period of the Reform Act, there
are not persons below the class of £lO householders
thoroughly fitted for the suffrage ? (Cheers.) Are there
not numbers of persons who are perfectly capable of judging
and in circumstances sufficiently independent' to qualify
th.eiti to vote at elections f For my own part I have no
hesitation in answering that question in the affirmative
and I confess it has appeared to me for some years that such
is the growth of intelligence, such the improvement of the
people, that you ought not to confine yourselves to the limit
of £lO. (Hear, hear.) A right hon. gentleman in address-
ing his constituents,. I believe, told them that in 1851, find-
ing the Administration of which I was the head not so
popular as it had been, I bethought myself of extending the
franchise by way of acquiring a little popularity. (Hear,
and laughter.) A very kind suggestion this! (A laugh.)
But gwill explain to the house what were my real views on
that occasion. I considered that there were thousands of
persons who were every year becoming fit to exercise the
franchise, and that if they were not admitted to that fran-
chise discontent would arise among them. (Hear, hear.)
I had seen two questions settled by Governments, but
settled, as I thought, under untoward circumstances. The
Roman Catholics of Ireland had been barred out from their
rights until their discontent came to the verge of civil war,
and then their petitionwas granted. (Cheers.) The agita-
tion against the corn laws went on, and the petitions of the
people were entirely refused, until at last, in a year almost
of famine—in a year of great scarcity—the meetings in
favour of the repeal of those laws became much more
numerous, the discontent became much more loud, and then

that which had been previously refused was granted. These
I Consider were bad things, for the authority of Government
and of Parliament is sure to suffer if, when questions are
discussed year by year with calraness and patience on the
part of those who are petitioning for the removal of any
grievance, you always end with a refusal of their petition,
while when instead of fresh reasons you have noise, and
clamour, and agitation, and even threats of force and
resistance, you grant the demands which are made.
(Cheers.) It struck me, I must own, that although there
was no great cry, no vehement demand, for admission
to the elective franchise, yet that there were many persons
who wished to possess it, that those numbers would increase,
and that if you went on refusing their request until at last
they made their demands in a loud tone, and you then
granted them, instead of increasing the peace, the quiet;
and the contentment of the country, you would only teach
the great masses to rely upon force and not upon reason.
These were the grounds upon which in 1851 I proposed an
extension of the suffrage. In 1851 I propoSed a certain
franchise ; iri 1854 I proposed a modification of that fran-
ch;se. I will not say now what that franchise ought to be
at the present day. (Laughter and loud cheering from the
Ministerial benches.) I hold that it is for the Government
of the day to propose the franchise they may think right.
(Loud cheers.) When I sat on the bench on which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer now sits I did not hesitate to
propose what I thought right—(hear, hear)—and I was
ready to discuss the question in this house. On the first
occasion to which I have referred the dissolution of the
Government, and on the second, the occurrence of war pre-
vented my proposals front being discussed ; but I held then,
as I hold now, that it is the business of the Government to
make such propositions-(cheers)—and let us amend these
propositions if we think fit. It is, however, for the Govern-
*ant to take the initiative, and the question now to be con-
sidered is simply this, whether her Majesty's Government
are right in refusing any reduction whatever of the franchise 1
in towns so for as the occupation franchise, by value or
rating, is concerned. I will say this much, that I doubt
whether the propositions I formerly made, founded upon
rating, were based upon a very sound foundation, for I have
certainly found that rating varies very much (hear, hear)—
that although the Poor Law Board say that £6 of gross
rental may be always taken as £5 of poor-law rating, yet
that rule does not hold constantly; and, therefore, I believe
that any change you make in the £lO franchise should be of
the same nature as the franchise established by the Reform
Act—viz., based upon annual value. (Cheers.) The Govern-
ment refuse any change of that kind, and the right hon.mem-
ber for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) told us he was afraid if
you established an uniform franchise, whatever it might be,
and if you had no variety in the franchise, that one day or
other there would be an ugly rush in order to get over the
line. Well, sir, I believe that to be the case, and therefore
I ask the house to declare that so far as the borough fran-
chise is concerned some further extension is required.
(Hear, hear.) I have now dealt with the two points to
which the amendment I have to propose refers, but while
hardly anybody stands up to say that it is right to merge
the freeholders in the boroughs and to make one uniform
franchise, or to refuse any reduction of the occupation fran-
chise in boroughs, various modes of evading the argument
rather than of answering it are resorted to, which it is
sought to avoid the conclusion at which I have arrived in
the amendment lam submitting to the house. Some per-
sons say that it is irregular to prefer such an amendment as
this on the second reading of the bill. Now, I think this
objection can hardly be entertained by those hon. gentlemen
who last year supported the resolution of my right hon.
friend the member for Ashton•nnder-Lyne (Mr. M. Gib-
son), because they then voted not only for a resolution
that was an amendment to a bill, but a resolution
which had very little reference to that bill, and a resolution
likewise, which was put in the place of a bill which they
approved. (Cheers.) Everybody will recollect how very
highly they approved the Conspiracy Bill—(laughter and
cheers)—how much they applauded it on its first introduc-
tion, and how strongly the Government of my noble frien.l
was urged in another place to introduce a bill of that kind.
Yet, instead of reading that bill a second time, they sup-
ported a resolution which was interposed between the bill
and the proceedings of the house. My right hon. friend the
member for Ashton-under-Lyne said to me on that occasion,
" If you dislike the bill, you may depend upon it that if
my resolution is carried you will hear very little more of the
bill." That was to me a good reason for supporting the re-
solution. What reason the right hon. gentlemen opposite
had for voting for that resolution] I don't know, but at all
events their conduct was not actuated by dislike of the bill.
(Cheers.) Now, I say at once with regard to the bill before
the house, that I consider it to be a measure of a most noxious,
injurious, and dangerous character. (Prolonged cheering.)
I may be asked then why, instead of moving the amendment
I have proposed, I did not move that the bill be read a
second time this day six months ? Well, sir, I will explain
the reason why I did not take that course. This bill con-
tains, no doubt, some proposals which are to bo aporovsd
and supported. (Cheers.) For instance, it admits £lO oc-
cupiers to the franchise in counties. It may notdo so in the
most convenient form, because instead of the proposition
with respect to a £lO franchise made by Lord Aberdeen's
Government in 1851, it provides that the qualification shall
be lands and tenements. [An hon. member—" Or tene-
ments."] Well, I will speak as that part of the question
presently. It is obvious, however, that if lor any one else,
instead of opposing such a resolution as I ant submitting to
the house, had moved that the second reading of the bill
should be rejected, it would have been said directly in this
house, but much more out of doors, "You have rejected a
bill, the chief feature ofowhich is the admission to the fran-
chise of the £lO occupiers in counties, who you were last
year so anxious to enfranchise." Now, that is not the chief
feature of the bill, and I wish to mark by this resolution
what is the principle of upon which the bill stands. It rests
upon that first clause which I have read, and therefore I
think it is necessary that, before proceeding to the second
reading, this house should take care to express its opinion
with regard to the character of that provision, which, as I
have said, is the chief principle of the bill. What course the
Government would take if this amendment were carried it
is not for me to say. Undoubtedly they might change
the whole character of the bill. It would be impossible
for me or any one else to do so in committee, because I
have shown you that the first clause of the bill con-
tains the whole principle of the measure, and if we were
to negative that first clause in committee after having agreed
to the second reading of the bill, I think the Government
might justly say to us, "You have agreed to the second
reading of a bill the chief—the great—principle of which is
the uniformity of the franchise, and now you strike out in
committee the clause by which that uniformity is estab-
lished." I hold that the proper course to pursue is that this
house should record its opinion first with regard to the pro-
posed mode of treatment of the county freeholders whose
property may he situated in boroughs, and secondly, with
regard to the occupation franchise in boroughs. his said
. .

th;t in committee-Land the right hon. gentleman himself
seemed rather to invite this course—all sorts of opinions may
be expressed, and all kinds of clauses may be proposed ; but,
considering what this question is, what is its gravity and
importance, and how much the right hon. gentleman dwelt
upon that gravity and importance, the proposal of throwing
the whole representation of the country into hotch-potch as
it were, inviting every one to make his amendment and to
bring forward his clauses, is a proposal unworthy of a Go-
vernment, degrading to the character of this house, and
likely in the end to produce a bill which will not be condu •
vivo to the public interest. (Cheers) I remember very well
what were our proceedings on the Reform Bill, and I know
that it was the entire confidence which a great majority of
the house reposed in Lord Althorp, it was the steadfastness
and firmness with which they supported any proposition. of
his, which alone enabled the house to deal with subjects of
such vast weight and importance. But if we are to go from
the first clause down to the last, amending every word, ex-
eluding, the boroughs from the first clause, and waiting until
the end of the committee in order to bring up a clause
which will suit the boroughs,—if we are to be chan-
ging and chopping upon every clause —I am sure that
the house cannot hope successfully to get through a bill of
this kind. And, then, recollect the manner in which a bill is
often treated in committee. At a certain hour in the even-
ing three-fourths of the house go away, and then perhaps
members will come back and say, " I did not know the
committee was going to divide so soon ; you have disfran-
chised all these freeholders without allowing me an oppor-
tunity of recording my vote or of expressing my opinion on
the subject." Our only security against these inconve-
niences is, that there should be before the house some great
question which can be properly debated, and upon which
the house can come to a solemn decision. Now, I will ven-

ture to read to you what is the character of the phrase
" lands and tenements." As I have said, the authors of
the Reform Bill took very great care on all these subjects,
and when they provided for the franchise of boroughs they
made use of the words "house, shop, office, warehouse, or
other buildings," and so with regard to other details. Here,
however, in the very beginning of this bill, we have "qua-
lifications arising out of lands or tenements," and then any
person " who shall be beneficially entitled . . . . to an
estate of inheritance in lands or tenements of freehold
tenure" of not less than 40s. clear annual value is to have a
vote in boroughs. Now, I have looked into an authority
to whom unlearned people go to find their law—l mean
" Blackstone's Commentaries"—where the phrase is thus
explained :
' Land' comprehends all things of a permanent, sub-
stantial nature, being a word of a very extensive significa-
tion, as will presently appear more at large. Tenement'
is a word of still greater extent, and though in its vulgar '
asce.ptation it is only applied to houses and other buildings,
yet m its original, proper, and legal sense it signifies every-
thing that may be holden, provided it be of a permanent
nature, whether it be of a substantial and sensible or of an
unsubtantili, ideal kind. Thus libeirtin tenemention, frank '
tenement ot freehold, is applicable not only to land and
other solid objects, but also to offices, rents, commons., and
the like ; and, as lands and houses are tenements, so is an
advowson a tenement ; and a, franchise, an office, a right of
common, a peerage, or other property of the like unsubstan-
tial kind are all of them, legally speaking, tenements."
So, when they say that "land or tenements" is to give a
vote in boroughs, you see how wide a door is open to every
kind of abuse, to every kind of fictitious vote which may be
created not.by the possession of land, and what is usually
understood as a tenement, but by anything which will boar
this construction. Now, in law, I hold, for my part, that it
is useless to go into a bill which in its first page and in its
main provision contains so disastrous a change in the law
and constitution of this country-v (hear, hear)—and I con-
fess I am not deterred from taking the course which I pro-
pose by the observations made the other evening by anhea
friend near me (Mr. Roebuck), that if we should venture to
interfere with the course of the Government bill we may
have a dissolution of Parliament. I hold that it would be
quite unworthy of us to pause on a question which is to
affect ourselves and our descendants through fear either of
a dissolution or of sow threatened danger to our foreign