ASSIGNMENT OF SEATS IN LIEU OF ST. ALBANS AND SUDBURY.

HC Deb 10 May 1852 vol 121 cc434-66

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, when, after re-election, I had the honour to resume my seat in this House, in answer to the interrogatories that were then addressed to me by an hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers), as to the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to their general policy, and as to the course which they intended to pursue, after giving the hon. Gentleman such explanations as were necessary with regard to the first point, I had to communicate to him the course which the Government intended to adopt with respect to the despatch of business before the House; and I stated then that although it was the intention of Government humbly to counsel Her Majesty to dissolve the present Parliament, they were not prepared to give that advice until those measures should be passed which the exigency of the public service required, and some other measures were also carried which they deem to be of paramount importance. Although on that occasion I did not absolutely define all the measures which under the circumstances Her Majesty's Ministers might think proper to submit to the consideration of the present Parliament—although the House was, indeed, too generous to demand a pledge so precise, and I hope that Her Majesty's Ministers were too discreet to enter into an engagement so precipitate—voluntarily and without disguise I did then—that being in the middle of the month of March, express to the House what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to some measures which could not be described as coming within the category of those absolutely necessary for the supply of Her Majesty's service. I said then there wore three measures that we deemed of paramount importance: one with respect to the internal defence of the country; another, a measure to carry into effect, if possible, those recommendations which were made for the reform of the Court of Chancery by Her Majesty's Commissioners; and, thirdly and lastly, I said that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in case the Bill which was then before the House for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans received the sanction of Parliament, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to ask the House of Commons to assist in completing the constitutional number which had hitherto formed the aggregate of representatives in the House of Commons. Sir, I am unwilling at all times to quote to this House anything which I may have said in previous debates; and if this were merely an expression of sentiment or opinion, I should, I hope, have the good taste to refrain from doing so now. If, therefore, I may presume to refer to an authoritative statement of what then fell from me, it is only because I wish to place before the House, in a manner the accuracy of which cannot be questioned, those details which are matter of fact. Sir, I find that what fell from me on that occasion is thus accurately represented. I said then— I will mention, if the House will permit me, some measures which I think ought to be introduced without delay. I do not allude merely to those votes for the public service which every Member will, I am sure, join in granting to us; neither do I allude merely to the Mutiny Bill, which nobody, I believe, yet—although I have heard some strange rumours upon the subject—is prepared to oppose. But there are three other measures with regard to which, on the part of the Government, the greatest efforts will be made to secure their speedy passing. Those measures I shall feel it my duty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, earnestly to press on the attention of the House. One of them is the disfranchisement of St. Albans, which has already been taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole). In connection with that measure, I beg to say that I shall take the earliest opportunity of expressing, on the part of the Government, what are their intentions with respect to the distribution of the four forfeited seats which we shall have to deal with if that Bill should receive the sanction of the House. That is a subject, in my opinion, of the greatest importance; it is, I think, highly expedient, that before Parliament is dissolved, the number of seats should be completed; and I trust that the proposal which the Government will have to make upon that subject will receive the general support of the House."—[3 Hansard, cxix. 1061.] Now, Sir, I must confess that I am surprised—I would almost presume to say that I am, individually, somewhat pained —to hear it insinuated, and more than insinuated, that in asking for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose which is on the paper to-night, I have taken the House by surprise—that I have committed—I will not say a breach of trust, though even that expression has met the eye—but that I have tampered with the honourable understanding which subsists between the Government and the House. Sir, I am not conscious of having acted in this respect in any other than a perfectly clear and straightforward manner. The day after I heard that Her Majesty had given Her assent to the Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, in pursuance of the first declaration which I made to this House as a responsible Minister of the Crown, I gave notice of the intention which I hope to-night I may partly fulfil. Sir, I have made these observations because I wish to vindicate myself from a charge which has been so freely circulated, and I trust that the statement I have made, will, whatever may be the opinion of the House on the main subject, exonerate me from any charge of not having behaved towards the House in this matter in that candid, open, and straightforward manner which it becomes us to pursue in the conduct of the public business.

Sir, it now becomes my duty to state that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is highly expedient that those seats should be filled up before the dissolution of Parliament takes place. Sir, I am well aware that if any hon. Gentleman opposite were to ask me what was the magic in that particular number of 658, or why the completeness of our legislation should be questioned without the concur-reuce of that aggregate number of Members—if I were asked to define or describe the cabalistic charm of these numerals, I freely admit that I should find myself extremely perplexed; but if I were equally asked from the same quarter to prove and demonstrate why twelve should be the number fixed for that tribunal which is the most popular in this country, I think that my perplexity would be not less considerable. It would be extremely difficult to show that twelve is a number more absolutely perfect for the administration of justice by such a tribunal as a jury, than an unequal number, such as thirteen; and arguments might be offered why this number should be increased, or why it should not be so considerable. Sir, the foundation of all these arguments is prescription; prescription, which consists of rules created by experience and sanctioned by custom. And, Sir, we must remember that prescription is, after all, the most important element of order, of liberty, and of progress; and although I myself am not, I am sure, inclined to yield to that principle any superstitious adherence, I am still of opinion that the time is not arrived when prescription can he lightly treated by a House of Commons. The inconvenience and the injury of outraging such a principle is more easy to comprehend, than it is to establish the peculiar arrangement in question. A violation of prescription is an element of disturbance— it leads to discontent—it offers a premium to extravagant projects—it invites men to immature schemes and hazardous suggestions; and were it for no other reason than this, I feel that it would be our duty to warn the House against that which has become a continuous and systematic deficiency in the aggregate numbers of the House of Commons. Deeply convinced, then, of the inconvenience and of the peril of indulging in this continuous and systematic deficiency in our numbers, Her Majesty's Ministers have felt it their duty to express this opinion to the House. In their opinion, and in their view of the case, it is essentially a case for the House of Commons to consider—in their view of the case it is the first duty of the House of Commons to fulfil; and if that be true, if it be for the House of Commons to see that its numbers are complete, it necessarily follows that the fulfilment of that duty should fall upon those who happen to be the Ministers of the day; because from the system of conducting public business in this House, and from the liberal concession of the time of the House to the existing Administration, it is quite clear that no question of this kind could with convenience be carried but by those who, by the generous confidence of the House, as an existing Administration, have conceded to them that command over the time of the House which the Government always possesses. Sir, if the Government were to follow their own inclinations—if they were; to consult merely their own personal interests and convenience—I hardly know any subject which they would more freely avoid than the settlement of questions like the present. They are essentially invidious. In old days, whenever questions concerning the appropriation of vacant seats were introduced, party passions were necessarily excited. In a country where the Government is carried on by the machinery of political party, it is scarcely possible to offer a suggestion for a settlement of a question of the kind, without, of course, the imputation of political motives, and perhaps without the possibility of political bias. But, Sir, at the present day, a Ministry that attempts to recommend to the House measures for the settlement of such questions, has not merely to encounter the ancient and traditional political sentiments of opposite parties. Of late years another element has entered into the discussion of these subjects, which tends peculiarly to embitter feelings, to create jealousies, and to increase difficulties; and that is, the unhappy misunderstanding between town and country, which I, for one, notwithstanding all that has passed, hope yet may be of shorter duration than some are disposed to believe. Well, then, these two considerations alone would have induced the Government, but for a paramount sense of duty, to have avoided interfering in the settlement of this question. Sir, I do remember that when, in the month of March, on the part of the present Administration, I expressed their intentions of introducing a measure on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) did on that occasion express his dissent from the sentiments I then conveyed to the House. I will do him the justice to acknowledge that. But allow me to remind the House of the circumstances under which that protest—that provisional protest, was offered by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was then labouring under a conviction, or a fear, that Her Majesty's Ministers wished to avoid a dissolution of the present Parliament, or, at least, that they wished to postpone that appeal to the people to a much later period than had ever entered into the imagination of Her Majesty's Ministers. Such was the feeling entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was avowedly upon that impression that the right hon. Gentleman founded his objection to the course I am now taking. But, Sir, there is now no apprehension in the mind of any Member of this House that the dissolution of Parliament can be postponed, or that any one wishes to postpone it. On the contrary, the only expressions of regret at the impending dissolution which have reached me have not been uttered, I must say, by Gentlemen who do the present Administration the honour of supporting them. Sir, the moment that a pledge was given that the new Parliament should meet in the present year, it was quite clear that it would not be the interest of Her Majesty's Ministers to postpone the dissolution of the existing Parliament; because, if Her Ma- jesty's Ministers have to meet the Now Parliament in this year, the natural desire which men with such responsible duties must have of obtaining at least sufficient time to prepare the measures which they may have to submit to the new Parliament, must make it, of all men, the interest of Ministers not to shrink from as speedy an appeal as possible to the constituencies. Therefore, the objection which the right hon. Gentleman raised to my bringing forward a measure of the kind I am now asking leave to introduce, namely, that it would tend to the postponement and procrastination of the dissolution, can no longer, I think, be urged, or enter into the mind of any Member, or in the present case influence in any degree his conduct. It is, then, not with any intention to influence the duration of this Parliament—which I think all must acknowledge who candidly consider the circumstances—but because we consider it to be of paramount importance that the constitutional number of Members of this House should be complete, and because we think, that of all times when that completion should take place, it is previous to a dissolution, we have felt it our duty, however unwillingly, to ask the leave of the House to bring in a Bill for the fulfilment of that object. Sir, the fact that a dissolution is impending, instead of being a reason against the House coming to some decision on the subject, appears to me, on the contrary, the strongest argument in favour of the course we are pursuing. If there are persons who are not represented, and who ought to be represented, what time more apposite for investing them with their legitimate privilege than when we are about to give the country at large the opportunity of exercising the franchise; and if it be the opinion of the House that there ought to be four more Members of Parliament than there are here at present, what time more fitting for supplying the deficiency than when you will be in a position constitutionally to call them together for the fulfilment of their duties. Sir, the very sense of the great inconveniences which have arisen in all discussions of this kind, from that unfortunate jealousy which exists between town and country, to which I have before alluded—the very feeling that it is highly impolitic on all occasions to be marshalling the rival claims of different parts of the community as regards their population or their property—has, I think, given rise to an anxiety in a very considerable portion of the country to see whether other elements wherewith to form a constituency may not be devised, than those which have hitherto supplied elements of the electoral body. Sir, I have seen many plans which, if they were carried into effect, would send Members to Parliament by means, I think, entitled in every way to our respect, but other than those which are generally had recourse to. To-night, for instance, before I rose to address you, Sir, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Lennard) gave notice, that if I succeeded in going into Committee with the Bill for which I now apply, he should propose that two of the Members for the vacant seats should be apportioned to the University of London. Sir, I believe that in making that suggestion the hon. Gentleman spoke in unison with the feelings of considerable classes entitled, I repeat it, in every way to the respectful consideration of this House; and I can truly say that that proposition has not been viewed by Her Majesty's Ministers with any sort of prejudice: it has, on the contrary, been observed with interest and with sympathy. Sir, I can admire the idea that would permit science and learning, by the immediate exercise of the popular suffrage, to take their place in this House, without the embarrassment of political connexion, and without the inconveniences of party passions. But, when this question is examined—and with the permission of the House I will slightly touch upon it—the difficulties, though I am far from saying that the House could not remove them—the difficulties are not inconsiderable. In all those suggestions which would lay down as a principle that the elements of our constituent body should be of a less absolutely material character than heretofore—that the intellectual and the moral qualities should be permitted to exercise their influence on this House without a necessary connexion with political party—in all those suggestions there is something so plausible to the reason, and, I would add, even so captivating to the imagination, that I can easily understand that they have excited a great public interest, and engaged the approbation of many individuals who are entitled to the highest respect. Now, Sir, suggestions have been made, for example, that it would be desirable that the learned Societies for which this metropolis is celebrated, should furnish a Member or Members to this House; and, at the first glance, remembering who would probably be among the Members thus deputed to this House, it must be admitted to be a proposition highly deserving of our examination. Take the Royal Society, for example. It is a very ancient society. It was founded by a monarch. It has been adorned from the days of Sir Isaac Newton by some of the greatest men whom England has produced. And at this moment it counts among its members some of our fellow-subjects of whom we are most proud. But the House must remember this, when we talk of the learned Societies, that in the nineteenth century learned Societies no longer necessarily consist of learned men. The necessity of having a large revenue, and of raising that revenue by public subscriptions, permits a great number of individuals to be numbered among learned Societies who have no other claim to that distinction than that which is conferred by their wealth and the general respectability of their character. You would not necessarily, therefore, because you delegated the privilege of sending a Member or Members to Parliament to the learned Societies, have a constituency formed of learned men. Another difficulty in the case is to draw the line, if once you admit a principle so fluctuating in its elements. If the Royal Society—I take that as the oldest and the most distinguished among them all—is entitled to have a representative in this House on the ground that that Society itself is a representative of science, there are many other Societies who may also assume to represent science. Why, if you admit the Royal Society, on what principle can you shut out the Geographical Society, or the Zoological Society, or the Astronomical Society? And if you were to take all these Societies, and say that by aggregating them together we should form a considerable constituency to whom collectively should be given a representative in Parliament, what will prevent new geographical societies, new zoological societies, and new astronomical societies being formed to-morrow, who might urge their claim to the possession of the franchise on the same plea? In fact it is evident—I say it with great respect to those Societies—in fact it is evident that, dealing with the materials before us, it would be in the power of any body of men—any club, for example—to give themselves a scientific designation, to affect scientific pursuits, and to make that a claim for the exercise of the franchise. Well, then, Sir, on examining the claims of the learned Societies to this privilege, I feel that the difficulties are too great for us to overcome, and we have, therefore, reluctantly dismissed them from consideration. It has been suggested, again, that there are Royal Corporations of great consideration in this country—Royal Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians, a Royal Academy of Arts, and other similar institutions that might be grouped together for the purpose of Parliamentary representation. Sir, I have no wish in any way to impugn the conduct of those corporations, or to trench in any degree on their privileges; but if we examine into the constitution of those societies we shall find that, generally speaking, they are self-elected; and though the influence of their career and the result of their operation may be satisfactory to the country, I do not think it would be judicious, nor indeed very constitutional, that we should look for the elements of a representation amongst self-elected corporations. Well, Sir, to come to the claim which has been partially advocated to-night by the notice of the hon. Member for Maldon — the claim of the Universities which are not represented. Now that appears at the first blush to be an extremely plausible plea. The ancient Universities of England are represented—the University of Dublin is represented—why then, for example, should not the Scotch Universities be represented? But any one who has investigated the question, who has looked into the condition of the Scotch Universities, with every wish to recommend such a measure to the House—and it was my own wish—will find that the elements of a popular constituency are totally wanting; that in the Scotch Universities, for instance, there is no body like the Convocation of our English Universities; that you have students who never, or rarely ever, become graduates; that there is no privilege annexed in Scotland to the taking out of an academic degree, and that therefore it is seldom that any individual takes a degree. If, then, you invested the united Universities of Scotland with the privilege of being represented in this House, the privilege would, in fact, be in possession of a few rectors, and about a hundred professors. The elements of a popular constituency are altogether wanting. Well, so much for the learned Societies, and so far for the Scottish Universities. But I have now to notice the claim of the London University. My Colleagues and myself have considered not only the case of the learn- ed Societies, and not only the case of the Scotch Universities, but also the claim of the London University; but I am bound to say, with every disposition to recommend such a measure as that which the hon Gentleman has shown his favour to, we do not find, in the present state of the London University, the conditions which are necessary for making a concession under the circumstances of such a nature as this. The constitution of that University is, at present, too immature, its development too imperfect, for Urging any well-founded claim of the nature now in question. At the utmost, a scattered constituency of a few hundreds only could be collected, and I must say that there appears to me to be others whose claims on the consideration of the House are stronger and more numerous than is at present the claim of the University of London. I think it right, however, to add, that in considering the claim of this institution, Her Majesty's Government have felt that the principle upon which it is urged is a principle entitled to respect and approbation; that there is nothing fantastic or unfitting in the claim; but that it is in perfect unison with principles which are already acted upon in this House, in the case of Oxford, of Cambridge, and of Dublin. Sir, there has been another proposition made, which, I confess, has been urged with great power, and which possesses many causes why it should be entertained with the deepest consideration. We have been urged to recommend to the House to concede, at least, one Member to the Inns of Court. Sir, the four Inns of Court would, no doubt, afford a considerable and most respectable constituency—a constituency of some thousands arising from corporations that have existed from immemorial ages, that have taken a distinguished part in the history of this country, and which have sent to this House some of its most eminent Members. We did think that it was no objection to this plan, that an eminent lawyer, by the confidence of the Inns of Court, might find his way into this House without the taint of political or party connexion. We thought that, in an age favourable to legal reform, for example, it was very possible that the appreciation of his fellow-lawyers might select some student who might otherwise shrink from the coarser collisions of public life on the hustings, and yet might take his place in the House of Commons as the representative of a constituency of some thousands of honourable and learned men, and afford by his erudition and his counsel a very great assistance to the deliberations of this House. But, Sir, after giving to the question the most deliberate and the most anxious consideration we found it impossible to avoid the conclusion that it would be a hopeless task to propose to the House of Commons the allocation of one or two Members to the Inns of Court, unless we were prepared to concede the same privilege to other similar constituencies. I know there is a prejudice—which I do not share—against the too considerable appearance of lawyers in this House. I beg to say, Sir, that I do not share it, because I remember how much of our liberty is owing to our law, and is founded upon our law, and that in the most critical periods of our history, lawyers have been the greatest and most fearless champions of the rights of the people of England. I confess I am surprised, therefore, at the existence of a prejudice such as this, to which, however, I must, most reluctantly, yield. It is one I have always deplored, one which I can never cease to lament, when I recollect that lawyers have been, not only the great assertors of English liberties, but also the greatest ornaments of the House of Commons; when I remember that Sir Edward Coke and Lord Bacon both sat in this House; when I remember that the revered names of Selden, and of Somers, both belonged to the House of Commons; that in an after age this House resounded with the golden eloquence of Mansfield, and was once adorned by the majestic virtues of Romilly; and that it is our happiness to remember that amongst our Members, the esteemed descendants of some of those great men are still to be found. But though I cannot agree in a prejudice which I think unwarranted by facts, I feel it would not do for Her Majesty's Government to propose, unless the proposition were attended by some identical or analogous projects, to allot one or more of the four vacant seats to the Inns of Court; therefore, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, after careful consideration, and with the most ample desire to introduce constituencies founded upon these elements, and believing that they might contribute to the increased reputation of this assembly, I must renounce at present any attempt to form a constituency out of those interesting, but, I fear, impracticable elements.

Under these circumstances, Sir, I have how to place before the House the results of the next step in the investigations by the Government on this subject, and the course which, on the whole, they think it best for the House to follow, in order to accomplish that which they deem one of the highest duties of the House—namely, the completion of its constitutional numbers previous to the impending dissolution. In considering where we should seek for the elements of a new constituency to which to confide the possession of one of the noblest privileges that a freeman can exercise, we have had to regard the relative claims of the different portions of the community; for very much depends on the relative degree of representation which they at present enjoy, and we have thought that the relative degree of representation could scarcely be more fairly tested than by ascertaining the number of existing constituencies and the numerical strength of the populations by whom those existing constituencies are, as it were, fed, supplied, and sustained. And in looking over the different constituencies of this country, guided by this principle, there is one constituency the claims of which seem to Her Majesty's Government to be paramount, and that is the constituency of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Her Majesty's Government propose to recommend to the House that two of these seats should be apportioned to the West Riding of York shire. The constituency of the West Riding of Yorkshire is, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, about 37,000. Generally speaking, the representation of the county has been, as far as the great material interests are concerned, neutralised, in the opinions of its Members, in this House. The agricultural and manufacturing interests have generally sent Members for this riding of such opposite opinions in reference to these great interests, that they have sustained a nicely-balanced power upon the important subjects connected with these interests. But on remarkable occasions, when popular feeling has been much excited, that has happened which is not unusual under such circumstances — namely, although the parties in this great district are nicely balanced, popular opinion has just given the deciding impulse to the election, and two Members of the same opinion have been sent here as representatives—as in 1841, for example—and almost a moiety of this great constituency has been practically disfranchised. Sir, under these circumstances, if the two Members were to be given without providing for these difficulties, it is very probable that the same result would frequently occur under similar circumstances, and you would have four Members returned for the county by a very small casting majority, and of the same opinions; as in 1841 you had two Members returned to the House professing Conservative opinions, who were returned by a small majority. For instance, the constituency being 37,000, I think the two Conservative Members elected in 1841 were returned by a majority barely exceeding 1,000. Under such circumstances Her Majesty's Government think the best course to recommend is, that the West Riding of Yorkshire should be divided. And if the House would permit me to lay before them the reasons which have induced us to recommend that course, and the method by which we propose to carry out this division in order to effect that object, I will at once proceed to do so. Sir, when we had arrived at this conclusion of recommending to the House the division of the West Hiding of Yorkshire into two districts, each of which should be represented by two Members, we supposed that that division might be effected by availing ourselves of what I may call the natural divisions, that is the hundreds, or as they are called in the West Riding, the wapentakes. There are ten wapentakes, and by a division of these we naturally thought that our object could be effected. But when we examined these divisions, we find that they present difficulties that are insurmountable. For example, one wapentake, or hundred, out of the ten, possesses at this moment more than one-third of the whole constituency. It was, therefore, found impossible to recommend such a division. There are other reasons to prevent such a division, which at the present moment I do not think it necessary to trouble the House by detailing. We found it impossible under such circumstances to effect a proper division by availing ourselves of the natural districts of the county. That being the case, we thought the difficulties might be overcome by establishing a division of the West Riding by means of the polling-places. But as it is in the power of the justices in their court of quarter-sessions to change these districts at their will, the House will see that we were again baffled in effecting such an arrangement, because although at the present moment they might form the basis of a proper arrangement, a division of this character would not afford us any permanent boundary. We, therefore, thought it impossible to effect our object by the present system of electoral divisions. Under these circumstances a suggestion was made to us to meet the difficulty; it is one which I observe has transpired—I do not regret it; but it has led to some of the most unfounded and ludicrous representations that have ever been circulated. It was represented to us that the county magistrates of the West Riding, for county purposes, at this very time and for some period back, finding the necessity of dividing the West Riding, have constructed a division of the Riding; and we were recommended to consider that division. It appears that they have not yet formally adopted this arrangement; but they have frequently discussed it among themselves, and it has been received with great favour by gentlemen of different opinions in the county. I have this plan now before me. It proposes to take the simple and intelligible boundary of the Midland Railway, which I think I can show to the House is one entitled to their consideration. The Midland Railway enters the West Riding from the county of Derby; it then leads to Skipton; then, turning towards Colne, it proceeds until it meets the boundary of the county of Lancaster. This division would thus affect the constituency. All that part of the county lying south and west of the line, we propose to call the southern division of the county; and all that part lying north and east, we propose to call the northern division of the West Riding. Wherever a township intersects this line, we propose that it shall belong to the northern division, in order that no such township should be divided or overlooked in this arrangement. The effect on the constituency in each of these divisions as to numbers will then be this: the constituency of the northern division will amount to 17,965, and that of the southern division to 18,785. Now, Sir, I have considered with some attention a criticism that has met my eye, and which, I confess, in the liveliness of its remarks, reminded me of some observations which I have heard elsewhere. I find the great accusation brought against this proposition is founded upon this objection—that the northern division we have thus marked out is com- posed of an agricultural constituency. Now, I must say for myself—and I offer this as a remark rather than as an argument—if the 17,000 or 18,000 constituents in this division be composed of persons most interested in agriculture, I see no reason why they should not be represented in this House as well as any other constituency within the kingdom; nay, more, I cannot understand why an objection should be made to 17,900 persons forming a constituency in this northern division being represented by a person connected with the agricultural interest, any more than the 18,900 in the southern division being represented by a person intimately connected with manufactures. I really think that 17,000 or 18,000 independent electors in the county have a right to choose those Members they think most entitled to their confidence. But it should be observed that if this division have the effect of making one portion of the West Riding almost purely agricultural—if that be true, in the same way we leave the other division, the southern division, entirely manufacturing; and, therefore, it might be equally objected to us that we take a contracted view of this question in reference to this latter division, for it might be said that by such an arrangement the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) will be its representative for life; for we are giving him a constituency that is entirely devoted to him—in fact, that the hon. Member for the West Riding will be the representative of a constituency in which no element of opposition exists. Well, if the result of this arrangement be that the hon. Member for the West Riding shall have a permanent seat in this House, I cannot say that I shall regret it. I confess that I should be sorry to see the hon. Gentleman absent from this House. Where a man has the power of influencing public opinion, it is, in my mind, much better that be should be responsible for his conduct in an assembly like this, than that he should exercise his great talents in other scenes, independently of his responsibility as a Member of the British House of Commons. But, Sir, in the map of the county magistrates which expresses their plan, I perceive that the division therein marked out is made in connexion with a simple and intelligible line of railway, by which Leeds, although a manufacturing town, is thrown into the Southern Division. We propose to follow that intelligible line of railway, but to leave Leeds in its natural position—the Northern Division. I have seen that denounced as an arrangement which would prevent the manufacturing interest of Leeds exercising its fair and due authority in connexion with the interests of the southern division. Why, the southern division is entirely manufacturing; it, therefore, wants no assistance whatever from Leeds, and by allowing it to remain in the northern or agricultural division we shall be permitting the enterprise and energy of a great manufacturing town to work in a large agricultural district. We propose that Leeds, as it ought to be, shall be the town of election for the northern division of the Riding: and we shall leave to Wakefield, its former rival, to be the election town for the southern division. I mention these details because I wish to show that we have really no selfish nor sinister design in making this recommendation. Sir, we thought it but respectful to Parliament and the country that we should ourselves, and personally, examine into and consider well all the plans that could be devised to effect the object which we have in view. We thought it due to this House to bring forward our plan so matured that we could confidently recommend that plan for your adoption which we consider more advantageous to the community at large. But this, after all, is a question of detail, belonging properly for the Committee of this House. Although I shall endeavour to support the views of the Government, and although I shall be prepared to express to the House, on another occasion, the minute details of this plan, and all those reasons which I think can be urged for the adoption of this line of demarcation, if the House shall admit the principle, we have no other object in view but that there shall be carried into effect that plan which is most agreeable to the House, as well as most advantageous to the country; and if any Gentleman can show to the House that there can be a line of demarcation more advantageous to the community, more just in its conception—one more fair in its application, and more beneficial in its results— Her Majesty's Government will be only too well pleased to support it.

Sir, it remains for me to express to the House the views which Her Majesty's Government have adopted in regard to the two other seats that are vacant. With regard to the two other seats, we have considered that on the whole we cannot be guided in the present instance by a better principle than that I have attempted to express. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the question we have to consider now is not the large question of Parliamentary Reform—it is the important question of completing the proper number of Members in this House, with a due deference to all existing arrangements in respect to the franchise. We must, then, apportion these seats with a due regard to our existing Parliamentary arrangements. I hope that when this subject is discussed, it will be viewed with a conviction of the truth of that observation. There may be Gentlemen who disapprove of the present system upon which the constituencies of the country are based. Different opinions upon such a question may be legitimately maintained and powerfully advocated. But these questions do not enter into this discussion; which arises from the necessity of having to apportion those vacant seats with due regard to all existing arrangements in respect to the franchise, and with a due regard to the number of voters throughout the country, which, of course, must form a most material element in our inquiry when we are called upon to decide upon the apportionment of those seats. Taking these as a test of the relative claims of the different places to increased representation— taking as a test the degree of representation which they at present possess—taking, I say, their relative claims, and making such claims depend upon their present relative representation—I find among a considerable number of constituencies of counties and boroughs the city of Westminster, with a constituency of 14,800—the town of Liverpool, with a constituency of 17,400— the borough of Lambeth of 18,000. I further find these three places supported by the following amount of population, namely, in Westminster, 241,000; in Lambeth,"251,000; in Liverpool, 376,000— each of these places represented by two Members. There is, also, Finsbury, with a constituency of 20,000—supported by a population of 323,000; Marylebone, with a constituency of 19,700—supported by a population of 370,000; the Tower Hamlets, with a constituency of 23,000—supported by a population exceeding 500,000; Middlesex, with a constituency of 14,600; Manchester, with a constituency of 13,900 —supported by a population of 316,000; South Lancashire, with a constituency of 21,650, with a population of between 500,000 and 600,000. Taking all this into consideration—the number of the con- stituency, weighing also the fact that the constituencies of the counties consist of occupying tenants of an amount greater than that required for borough constituencies; when the number of constituency is equal, we thought that we ought to decide in their favour, rather than in that of the borough constituencies, which are only of a lower qualification. [In answer to an Hon. MEMBER] Where constituencies are formed of occupying tenants, say of 501. —or what you like—it shows, as regards the material of the constituencies, there is equally a population which, irrespective of them, may also rank with the 10l. franchise in the boroughs. Taking also into consideration what I call in the counties the surplus population, irrespective of that population which is located in the limits of the boroughs, and taking also into consideration—which must not be omitted— what may be fairly called the permanent element of national wealth, which must not be omitted from consideration. Her Majesty's Government have resolved to recommend to the House to apportion the two remaining seats to the southern division of the County of Lancashire. Sir, I have been told that the votes have been lost to the towns, and that they ought to be given to the towns. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware that this is an objection that is easy to make; but it is most difficult to sustain. No one more admires the energy of the great towns than myself. I do not wish, however to mix up either their present proud position or their future fortunes with the degraded memories of St. Albans or Sudbury. Sir, I cannot think that the Members taken from those boroughs could either sustain their energies or add to their value. Let the House, however, recollect that in recommending the apportionment of those four seats to the West Eiding of Yorkshire and the Southern Division of Lancashire, we are including in these two county constituencies scores of towns four times larger than either Sudbury or St. Albans. If you take the surplus population of South Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire—if you take that portion of the population which is not admitted within the pale of any borough constituency—you have upwards of 1,400,000 persons who are directly or indirectly represented now by only four Members. We propose that they shall be in future represented by eight Members— that is our proposition. And if you look at the population of any of our greatest boroughs and constituencies brought under our consideration, you will not-find one of them that equals the surplus political population of the West Riding, or South Lancashire; and you will not find any two, or any three, or any four of those great constituencies, equal to that united population to which I have referred. We propose then, in regard to South Lancashire, for the same reasons, in order that the minority, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, whether it be agricultural or manufacturing, may be truly represented, that South Lancashire shall be also divided. South Lancashire consists of two hundreds—the hundred of Salford, and the hundred of West Derby. The hundred of Salford includes the flourishing city of Manchester, and the hundred of West Derby the famous port of Liverpool; therefore there is a natural and well-understood line of demarcation. The result upon the constituency will be, that the hundred of Salford will contain about 12,000 of a constituency, and the hundred of West Derby about 9,500. Sir, there are some details with respect to this division which I might mention if the House would sanction them; but I think the House will excuse them at present. I have thus endeavoured to place before the House the intentions of the Government; and to show the various considerations which have induced Her Majesty's Ministers, with the utmost impartiality, to recommend this plan to the House. There is no popular suggestion that has been supported by an amount of opinion entitled to respect, which we have not gravely considered. It will be most gratifying to us if we have succeeded in recommending to the House such a proposition as may create a constituency that will command the respect of this House, and of the country at large. Desirous to do that which we think most advantageous to the community, we have thought proper, in deference to the pledge which we previously gave, and in pursuance of that duty to the So-vereign, which we acknowledge, to bring this proposition before Parliament; and, Sir, whatever may be its fate, in making this proposition, we are convinced we have only done that which was incumbent upon us as Ministers of the Crown to bring this proposition before Parliament. Whatever may be the result of it, we are confident that we have only done our duty as Ministers of the Crown in submitting it to the consideration of this House. It is obviously a question of the greatest importance that the constitutional number of the House of Commons should be completed, and that that continuous and systematic deficiency of our number, which is perilous to the welfare of the country and to the honour of this House, should be removed. If these propositions are adopted, we believe that public opinion will sanction them, that they will contribute to the welfare of the community, and tend to increase the strength and the lustre of the House of Commons.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to assign the Seats forfeited by the disfranchisement of the Boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I do not feel either entitled or disposed to impute to Her Majesty's Government any sinister object in the introduction of the present measure; neither shall I impute to the right hon. Gentleman that he has taken the House by surprise, nor that he has tampered with an honourable understanding; because the right hon. Gentleman has with perfect correctness cited the announcement which he himself made to us on a former occasion. He has also done me the justice to refer to an objection which, at the first moment of that announcement, and without communication with any others, I was prompted to make. But the right hon. Gentleman did not state accurately the grounds upon which I rested that objection. I did not suggest to the House that it would be wrong on the part of the Government to introduce a measure of the kind because they were suspected of a clandestine intention of procrastinating the dissolution of Parliament. What I ventured to say was this, that it was part of the constitutional duty of the House of Commons to obtain from Her Majesty's Government a pledge that no measures other than those of immediate urgency should be introduced, and that a measure for the appropriation of the four-seats vacant by the disfranchisement of St. Albans and of Sudbury could not, by any latitude of construction, be brought fairly within the description of measures of that kind. I shall not join issue with the right hon. Gentleman in any degree upon the merits of the proposition which he has just submitted; but I shall endeavour strictly to confine myself to the consideration of the question, whether the subject to which he has directed the attention of the House is one into which at the present moment the House ought to consent to inquire. I shall, therefore, instead of meeting the proposal by a direct negative, suggest that the House should pass, in the usual phrase, I believe, "to the Orders of the Day." The right hon. Gentleman states that he proposes this measure to the House upon constitutional grounds; and I am entirely in agreement with him so far as the opinion goes, that it is a question of constitutional principle, either one way or the other. If the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in showing the constitutional urgency or the necessity for the settlement of the question, I grant that the House of Commons ought to give him leave to introduce the Bill; but if he has failed in showing that constitutional necessity for now bringing forward these constitutional arrangements, I shall endeavour to urge, upon the other hand, that this is no trivial or optional matter that we are engaged in considering; but that a strong constitutional principle demands of us to refuse to the Minister the leave which he has asked of us for the introduction of his Bill. I came down to the House with some degree of curiosity with respect to the nature of the arguments which might be adduced, upon constitutional grounds, in favour of the present proposition. This is a proposition which, at the present moment, with a House of Commons which, in the emphatic and imaginative language of a noble Friend opposite, has been designated a "moribund" House of Commons—with this "moribund" House of Commons, with an Administration which does not plead the title of possessing confidence, but is about to ask for a title of confidence by an appeal to the people, it is urged upon us that we should proceed to dispose of those unappropriated seats in order to fill up the constitutional number of Members of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has an especial affection for the phrase, "constitutional number,"—master of diction as he is in all its forms, he has reverted to that phrase over and over again in the course of his speech. He has evidently some idea in his own mind associated with the phrase of the gravest importance; but I am bound to say that, so far as I may take my own perceptions as a test, he has but very imperfectly, or rather not at all, developed that idea to the House. The right hon. Gentleman makes the admission, that there is no "magic" and no "cabalistic" virtue in the number "658." He is quite right: there is neither magic nor eabalistic virtue in it. But is there any virtue of law in the principle of the Constitution—is there any solemn decision of the House of Commons—is there anything in fact beyond mere accident and the duration of about forty years, which the right hon. Gentleman decorates with the title of "prescriptive," that should recommend the number "658" to our notice? There is a popular error on this subject—there is, I believe, an idea in the popular mind that the number "658" represents the great balance of interests in this country; and that it is the number ascertained by the study of our statesmen and legislators, and that it is our duty to guard that sacred number with fidelity, and watch it with jealousy. I believe that to be entirely a misapprehension on the part of the public—I do not believe there is any "magic" in the number, and I will dispense with any claim upon the right hon. Gentleman to show it, if he will only show us that there is any law on the subject. I do not believe that he will be able to find that number distinctly stated in any one single Act of Parliament relating to the representation of the people in this House. What we do find is this—that at the time of the passing of the Act of Union with Scotland, in order—as it was a junction formed between parties of very unequal power—to secure the weaker of these two parties, a certain number of representatives was stipulated, below which number it was not to be called to send Members to the House of Commons. The stipulation on behalf of Scotland was, that it should send forty-five Members, while for Ireland, at the time of the Union, the number stipulated was 100. But these Acts of Union state no limit whatever to the total number of Members of the House of Commons; and when you consider that the Act of Union with Scotland was passed at a time when within the memory of man the power of enfranchisement had been exercised by the prerogative of the Crown, we see plainly that the Legislature of that day had no intention whatever of fixing upon any maximum number, but intended to reserve it entirely for discussion and the teachings of practical experience to reduce or extend, as might seem convenient, the total number of Members of the House of Commons. Such was the case at the time of the Union with Scotland; and in the case of the Union with Ireland you have a distinct proportion of Members allotted; but in neither of these great constitutional acts are there any indications whatever of any intention to fix and determine a maximum number. The number 658 is, I will not say a magical or cabalistic number, but it was never intended to be the legal and constitutional number which composes the British House of Commons. We come, then, to this very awkward fact—one which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, notwithstanding all the dignity which he has bestowed on this title of prescription, and the warning which he gave of the danger of disregarding and undermining their time-honoured and venerable constitutional number—that we have to recollect that up to the present time, as a matter of fact, circumstances have existed at variance with this presumed prescription; for the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke of the danger of remaining in a state of "continuous" and "systematic" deficiency in this respect. But if the deficiency has been "continuous" and "systematic," where then is the prescription? A portion of the deficiency which is now sought to be made good, has existed for several years; for the House will recollect that the Act disfranchising Sudbury was passed in 1844. Since that time eight years have elapsed—since that time we have had three Ministries of all parties in the State—since that time all parties have been successively in opposition—and no Member of that Opposition, including the party now opposite, has ever called upon the House to vindicate this sacred prescription, or has pleaded these constitutional numbers, or has said one single word upon the necessity of raising this number to the usual standard; and thus, although we have had the very same occasion as we have now—although we have passed through the ordeal of a general election during that time, and although we have 656 Members returned to Parliament instead of 658, the right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech, appealing to our fears, has stated that he thought a condition of things like this was a condition that was dangerous to the country, and menaced the honour of the House. I must confess, Sir, it is the very first time at which I have heard a regret expressed at the reduction of the number which has been consequent on an accident, as the original fixing of the standard was conse- quent on an accident before. It appears to me that it is a pure question of convenience and policy, and nothing else, what the number of Members of this House shall be. But, setting aside private opinion, whether that private opinion may be my own, or the opinion of the Minister of the Crown, the point I put to the House is this, that the right hon. Gentleman was bound, in order to make good his case, to show that there was something of constitutional sacredness or real and venerable prescription, attaching to those numbers. On the contrary I think I have shown by reference to our great legislative instruments that the number does not even exist in them—that the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to show that it is the constitutional number has entirely failed, and that he cannot make any claim upon the confidence of the House consequent upon his having established such proof of their being the constitutional number. But if such be the case as regards the argument to show that this question ought to be entertained, upon the other hand, I hope that hon. Members will recollect that those who take the view I now humbly endeavour to recommend, are not now taking and now arguing that view upon any ground of mere etiquette or punctilio. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would have been unconstitutional if the Government on coming into office had pledged itself absolutely to the introduction of any given number of measures, and no more, and bad pledged itself then to advise a dissolution. But it was constitutional, it was right, for us to expect from them what they should give, and to ask— what they conceded—not the fixing of a certain number of measures—three or four, or whatever the number might be— but it was the laying down a principle, it was the laying down what I may fairly call an engagement; because, although I may contest the construction which the right hon. Gentleman puts upon that engagement, the latitude of its scope, I at once concede to him there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to endeavour to escape therefrom. But, Sir, the principle was this, and the understanding was this—that no measures except those of immediate urgency were to be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons during the present Parliament. This was variously stated on various occasions. Sometimes it was said that none except necessary measures were to be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons before the dissolution. On one occasion, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman carried his language so high as to say that the Government would not introduce to Parliament any measures except those of absolute and indispensable necessity. I do not wish to stand on one particular expression or another, because I feel the substance of the understanding was clear in the mind of every one who hears me, and that I am not stating it too highly or strongly when I say that the understanding which was made and obtained from the Government was an understanding that no measures but those of immediate urgency should be submitted to Parliament before the dissolution. And I must remind the House that neither did that understanding rest upon any narrow ground. On the contrary, it was sought and it was obtained in vindication of principles of the highest importance and for practical objects of the greatest moment—it was in vindication of the constitutional principle, that a Government which found itself at issue with the existing Parliament on a cardinal point of its policy, was bound to take one of two alternatives, namely, either to resign office— a course which no one recommended under the circumstances—or else to make its appeal to the people. This was the constitutional principle which it was sought to vindicate. But there was another object which Parliament had in view; and that was to discharge its solemn duty to those great principles of commercial policy which we are bound, I think, to see well brought into haven, and that at the earliest possible moment. I am sure, Sir, it is a fallacy against which every man ought to guard, if we suppose that because a Government are in power, and the principles of our law in regard to commerce have not been altered by positive measures, therefore we are to- rest satisfied. It would be, I think, no fulfilment, but an abandonment, of duty, to be contented that the matter should so remain. It has been admitted on that side of the House that it is a solemn duty upon us all to bring this question to a formal and a final issue. That can only be done, as the leader of the Government has stated, and as the other Members of the Government have allowed—that can only be done by an appeal to the people by a dissolution; and, therefore, in asking for a dissolution it is not for any partial or party object; but it is because, if there be one duty more clearly incumbent than another at the present time upon that large majority of the House of Commons who have upon repeated occasions testified their own cordial adhesion to the principles of free trade, it is this—that they should not be content, whatever may be said of the existence of the minority— that they should not be content to leave those principles to exist on sufferance; that they should not be content to leave those principles to the mercy of the chapter of accidents; that they should not be content, I frankly own, to leave those principles, as matters now stand, in the guardianship of Gentlemen whose own inclinations, without doubt or disguise, are opposed to them; but that we should expedite that process which the Prime Minister has justly and fairly proposed, namely, the process of obtaining a deliberate judgment of the constituencies in regard to the principles of our commercial legislation; and that, having obtained that deliberate judgment of the constituencies, we should then find the present Administration in a condition to lay down the course of policy by which they intend to be guided; and if they find the opinion of the public is adverse to a change of the policy which has recently been pursued, then that they should frankly confess and submit to that state of facts, so that at length this great controversy may be ended, and the machinery of the Constitution may fall into its usual course and order. Now, Sir this is a question not relevant to the merits of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as compared with other proposals, and not involving any invidious or acrimonious conduct; it is a question strictly relative to the introduction of a Bill, and the inquiry whether it ought to be entertained at all, which I wish mainly to press upon the notice of the House. And yet, Sir, before I sit down, I cannot avoid pointing out, that inasmuch as it is clearly shown that there is no constitutional ground of claim for the introduction of such a question at such a period, there is, on the other hand, a great inconvenience attending its introduction. In the first place, surely it is a sound canon of Parliamentary proceedings, that of all measures whatever, except those of immediate urgency—under all circumstances, and without the slightest reference to this at the present time—the eve of a dissolution of Parliament is the worst possible moment for their introduction, because it is plain it is a moment at which local partialities and personal interests are most alive, and at which there is the most difficulty for a Member of the House of Commons to give a deliberate and dispassionate judgment. But, beyond that, I will say this is a question with regard to which two essential conditions for consideration entirely fail at the present moment. The first of those conditions is this—although the scale of the subject be a small one—although it may appear to be no great matter what may be done with so small and insignificant a fraction of the representation as four seats, in the number which formerly amounted to 658—yet it is plain that this is a question of high policy, deserving of the most serious consideration; and, of all others, it is a question that ought to be approached once for all—it ought to be approached when it can be settled. Those seats ought not to be held up to the country as a prize for every man to snatch at. The matter ought to be discussed and settled, not in an unsettled and provisional state of things like the present, but when you have an Administration in possession of definite and decided political power. The right hon. Gentleman has already seen some indications, and has already mentioned some indications, of the disposition of all parties who are not represented, or who think they are not sufficiently represented, to catch at the possession of the vacant seats. Well, but surely these are claims which ought to be settled, not at haphazard, not by accidental divisions amongst parties nearly balanced, in a disorganized state of the House of Commons; but any proposal made for disposing of the claims to these vacant seats, whether they be one or a thousand, ought to be a proposal backed by the whole authority of a strong Executive, and a proposal which, when once seriously entertained, ought not to leave the table of the House until a definitive conclusion has been arrived at. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are great difficulties in this case to which he has hardly adverted, and which he, perhaps, found it necessary to pass over. I have said that it is essential to the interests of the country that when you decide a question, you should decide it under the advice and guidance of a Government in full possession of power. All questions touching the representation of the people are of so vital a character that they can only be settled on that condition. But, besides that I say, when you consider the multitude of parties who all think they can make a fair and plausible claim to the possession of these seats, you are bound to consider what is due to them, and to the feelings which they entertain. I do not say you can please them all; but you are bound to satisfy all that they have had a fair hearing and a full consideration of their case. Nay, I may put it to the right hon. Gentleman and the House whether he thinks this House of Commons, this "moribund" Parliament, is in a condition at this moment to give a fair hearing and full consideration to all those different claims. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to some of those claims. He alluded to the claims of the Universities, and he says, in the case of the Universities of Scotland, the claim is based upon a title to respect and approbation, and if I rightly understood that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the upshot of it was this—that it was in consequence of the want of machinery that he had forgone the idea of entertaining the question of representation so far as regards the Scotch Universities. But suppose time were given, and that the representatives of the Universities of Scotland should find that substantially a degree means nothing but a certificate of attendance, and that they can certify that attendance by other means—that there are records of it on the books—that they can fix upon something by which that condition may be satisfied, and you can constitute a proper register— I do not prejudge the question; but I say it a question on which all parties ought to be fairly heard, and you cannot hear the Universities simply because you do not find a registry in existence, and between this time and the dissolution it is impossible to organise the machinery to create one. If such be the case of the Scotch Universities, I may say the same of the Inns of Court, whose claims ought to be heard and considered. And there is also another class of claimants—the class connected with unenfranchised towns. I do not enter into the question whether the Scotch Universities, or the Inns of Courts, or the unenfranchised towns, or the old constituencies ought to receive these seats; but I say it is our duty carefully and thoroughly to examine and investigate the question—it is our duty to enter upon the question when, at any rate, we have a free and unembarassed choice, and not to narrow the field of our own choice by choosing precipitately at a time when we are precluded on this side and on that from conferring the franchise on new constituencies. For instance, I will say frankly that when the late Government proposed to confer the franchise on two large towns now unenfranchised— Burnley and Birkenhead—I had not had the opportunity of examining their claims, and I express no opinion upon them; but I say it would be rather hard if we were to pass by the claims of those parties by legislating at a period when it is impossible for the House to entertain them. The House cannot now legislate in their favour, because they have no registry. That is an absolute bar which cnnnot be surmounted. What I ask is this—can you expect the people of Burnley and Birkenhead, or other places similarly circumstanced, to be satisfied with the verdict the House of Commons shall give, if you are determined, without any constitutional sacredness or necessity whatever, to go to issue upon those questions at a time when it is matter of physical impossibility to bring them within the sphere of representation? Now, Sir, these are the reasons on which I hope the House will decline to entertain the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I should be sorry, indeed, if I had omitted to notice any argument of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the number of Members composing this House. I feel there is something in his own mind which he has not opened out and explained. I feel there is something in the phrase "constitutional number" which I have not been able to fathom. All I have been able to do is to observe what has taken place in history, and to consult the laws which are upon our Statute-book. From all these it appears upon the clearest evidence that the idea of any legal title or constitutional virtue attaching to the number 658 is as pure a fiction as ever entered the mind of man. It appears as a matter of fact, patent and notorious to all the world, that for the last eight years, during three Ministries, and with a general election intervening, we have fallen short of that constitutional number." such being the case, I put it to the House that there is no title of a constitutional character to be made for the measure; that, on the other hand, we are under high constitutional and political obligations to go straightforward to a dissolution, and to deal with nothing between us and the dissolution except matters of immediate and temporary urgency; and that even when we turn to considerations of detail, so far from this being the time when there is a peculiar convenience in the entertainment of the present question, it is, of all periods, the worst and most inconvenient that could be selected, and a period at which—if we precipitately hurry a decision—it is impossible for us to expect that that decision shall give satisfaction to the many claimants upon those franchises whom we are bound to hear, or to the people at large, who view necessarily with the utmost interest the decision and disposal of a question appertaining to the representative system of this country. Sir, I now beg to move that the House do now proceed to dispose of the Orders of the Day.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House do pass to the other Orders of the Day," instead thereof.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: —Ayes 148; Noes 234: Majority 86.

List of AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Fellowes, E.
Adderley, C. B.	Floyer, J.
Anson, Visct.	Forbes, W.
Bagge, W.	Fox, S. W. L.
Bailey, C.	Freshfield, J. W.
Baillie, H. J.	Frewen, C. H.
Baldook, E. H.	Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Bankes, rt. hon. G.	Galway, Visct.
Baring, T.	Gilpin, Col.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Goold, W.
Barrow, W. H.	Gore, W. R. O.
Benbow, J.	Granby, Marq. of
Bennet, P.	Greenall, G.
Bentinck, Lord H.	Gwyn, H.
Blandford, Marq. of	Hale, R. B.
Booker, T. W.	Halford, Sir H.
Bowles, Adm.	Hallewell, E. G.
Bramston, T. W.	Hamilton, G. A.
Bremridge, R.	Hamilton, J. H.
Bridges, Sir B. W.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Brisco, M.	Hardinge, hon. C. S.
Broadwood, H.	Harris, hon. Capt.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Heard, J. I.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Butler, P. S.	Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Carew, W. H. P.	Hildyard, R. C.
Chandos, Marq. of	Hope, Sir J.
Child, S.	Hotham, Lord
Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.	Hudson, G.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Clive, H. B.	Jones, Capt.
Cobbold, J. C.	Kelly, Sir F.
Cochrane, A. D. R.W. B.	Knox, Col.
Cocks, T. S.	Knox, hon. W. S.
Codrington, Sir W.	Lacy, H. C.
Collins, T.	Langton, W. H. P. G.
Copeland, Ald.	Lennox, Lord A. G.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Davies, D. A. S.	Lewisham, Visct.
Deedes, W.	Long, W.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Lopes, Sir R.
Dod, J. W.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Dodd, G.	Mandeville, Visct.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.	Manners, Lord G.
Buncombe, hon. W. E.	Manners, Lord J.
Dunne, Col,	Masterman, J.
Edwards, H.	Maunsell, T. P.
Evelyn, W. J.	Meux, Sir H.

Moody, C. A.	Spooner, R.
Morgan, O.	Stafford, A.
Mundy, W.	Stanley, E.
Muntz, G. F.	Strickland, Sir G.
Naas, Lord	Stuart, H.
Napier, rt. hon. J.	Sullivan, M.
Neeld, J.	Taylor, Col.
Newdegate, C. N.	Tennent, Sir J.E.
Newport, Visct.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Noel, hon. J. G.	Thompson, Ald.
Nugent, Sir P.	Tyler, Sir G.
O'Brien, Sir L.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Pakington,rt. hn. Sir J.	Vesey, hon. T.
Palmer, R.	Villiers, Visct.
Peel, Col.	Vivian, J. E.
Plowden, W. H. C.	Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Portal, M.	Waddington, D.
Renton, J. C.	Waddington, H. S.
Repton, G. W. J.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Rushout, Capt.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Sandars, G.	Whiteside, J.
Scott, hon. F.	Wigram, L. T.
Seymer, H. K.	Wynn, H. W. W.
Sibthorp, Col.	TELLERS.
Sidney, Ald.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Smyth, J. G.	Bateson, T.
List of the NOES.
Adair, R. A. S.	Craig, Sir W. G.
Alcock, T.	Crawford, W. S.
Anderson, A.	Crowder, R. B.
Anstey, T. C.	Currie, H.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Armstrong, R. B.	Dawson, hon. T. V.
Bagshaw, J.	Denison, E.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Denison, J. E.
Baring, H. B.	Devereux, J. T.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.
Bell, J.	Divett, E.
Bernal, R.	Douglass, Sir C. E.
Bethell, R.	Drumlanrig, Visct.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Drummond, H.
Blackstone, W. S.	Duke, Sir J.
Blake, M. J.	Duncan, G.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Duncombe, T.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.
Bright, J.	Ebrington, Visct.
Brocklehurst, J.	Egerton, W. T.
Brotherton, J.	Ellice, E.
Brown, H.	Ellis, J.
Brown, W.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bunbury, E. H.	Enfield, Visct.
Buxton, Sir E.	Estcourt, J. B. B.
Campbell, hon. W.	Evans, Sir De L.
Cardwell, E.	Evans, J.
Carter, S.	Evans, W.
Caulfeild, J. M.	Ewart, W.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Fergus, J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Ferguson, Col.
Chaplin, W. J.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Charteris, hon. F.	FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.
Childers, J. W.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Clay, J.	Foley, J. H. H.
Clay, Sir W.	Fordyce, A. D.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Forster, M.
Clifford, H. M.	Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Cobden, R.	Fox, R. M.
Cogan, W. H. F.	Fox, W. J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Freestun, Col.
Corbally, M. E.	French, F.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Cowan, C.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Goulburn, rt. hon. I

Grace, O. D. J.	O'Flaherty, A.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Osborne, R.
Granger, T. C.	Paget, Lord G.
Grattan, H.	Palmerston, Visct.
Greene, J.	Parker, J.
Greene, T.	Patten, J. W.
Grenfell, C. P.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Peel, F.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Hall, Sir B.	Perfect, R.
Hallyburton, Lord J. F.	Pilkington, J.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Pinney, W.
Harcourt, G. G.	Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. C.
Harris, R.	Power, N.
Hastie, A.	Price, Sir R.
Hastie, A.	Pusey, P.
Hatchell, rt. hon. J.	Rawdon, Col.
Hayes, Sir E.	Reynolds, J.
Headlam, T. E.	Rice, E. R.
Heneage, E.	Rich, H.
Henry, A.	Romilly, Col.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.	Russell, Lord J.
Hervey, Lord A.	Salwey, Col.
Heywood, J.	Scholefield, W.
Heyworth, L.	Scobell, Capt.
Hindley, C.	Scully, V.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Seymour, H. D.
Hogg, Sir J. W.	Seymour, Lord
Horsman, E.	Shafto, R. D.
Howard, hon. C. W. G.	Slaney, R. A.
Howard, hon. E. G. G.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Howard, Sir R.	Smith, J. A.
Hume, J.	Smythe, hon. G.
Humphery, Ald.	Somers, J. P.
Hutt, W.	Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Spearman, H. J.
Jermyn, Earl	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Stanton, W. H.
Keating, R.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Keogh, W.	Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Kershaw, J.	Stewart, Adm.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H.	Tancred, H. W.
Langston, J. H.	Tenison, E. K.
Laslett, W.	Tennent, R. J.
Legh, G. C.	Thompson, Col.
Lemon, Sir C.	Thompson, G.
Lennard, T. B.	Thornely, T.
Lewis, G. C.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Lushington, C.	Towneley, J.
M'Cullagh, W. T.	Townshend, Capt.
M'Gregor, J.	Trevor, hon. T.
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Tumell, rt. hon. H.
Magan, W. H.	Vane, Lord H.
Meagher, T.	Verney, Sir H.
Mahon, Visct.	Villiers, hon. C.
Marshall, J. G.	Vivian, J. H.
Marshall, W.	Wakley, T.
Martin, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Martin, C. W.	Walter, J.
Melgund, Visct.	Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Milligan, R.	Westhead, J. P. B.
Milnes, R. M.	Willcox, B. M.
Moffatt, G.	Williams, W.
Molesworth, Sir W.	Wilson, J.
Moncreiff, J.	Wilson, M.
Moore, G. H.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Morris, D.	Wyld, J.
Mowatt, F.	Wyvill, M.
Mure, Col.	Young, Sir J.
Norreys, Lord
Norreys, Sir D. J.	TELLERS.
O'Brien, J.	Hayter, W. G.
O'Connell, M. J.	Berkeley, G.

Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved —That this House do pass to the other Orders of the Day.