HC Deb 14 February 1861 vol 161 cc448-62
SIR GEORGE LEWIS

Although the measure I am about to propose is not large and comprehensive, any Bill which affects the construction of this Assembly, and which deals with four seats in it, on the principles which this House, if it legislates on the subject, will consider and adopt, is nevertheless, of considerable importance; and I feel certain that it will receive the deliberate attention of the House. Sir, the Bill which I seek to introduce is founded on the fact that, by former Acts of Parliament, two boroughs, those of Sudbury and St. Albans, have been disfranchised: the one in 1844, the other in 1852. Plans have been previously proposed for assigning these four seats, but the reason why the House has hitherto abstained from filling up the vacancies has been that an expectation was entertained that some measure would be passed, which, in the generality of its provisions, would deal with these four seats, and fill up the vacancies thus created. During the last Session of Parliament, as the House is well aware, Her Majesty's Government proposed a measure of Parliamentary Reform which embraced the disposal of these four seats. That measure, I need not remind the House, did not pass, and Her Majesty's Government have not thought it expedient to ask the House to consider a general measure of Parliamentary Reform this Session. Under these circumstances, it has seemed to them advisable that these four seats should not remain vacant, and that, to complete the integrity of the representation, a separate measure should be proposed whereby these vacancies shall be filled up. Sir, I am quite aware that any person who makes a proposal to the House affecting the disposal of four seats, under- takes a difficult task, inasmuch as it is necessary that he should make definite proposals in reference to them. It is quite certain that, should this Bill ever reach the Committee, many alternatives will be presented to the House; two notices have been already given which will deal with part of the subject, and no doubt at a future stage various views will be entertained by hon. Gentlemen who are the advocates of different districts or parts of the country. I cannot hope that the Measure I have to propose will not be open to criticism on particular points, and that it may not be possible to present other proposals in a manner which may appear specious to the House, or to certain portions of the House; but I will ask hon. Gentlemen to consider the plan as a whole, and not to expect that it shall be more than a fair and reasonable proposal, and on the whole superior to any other proposition which can be submitted to the consideration of the House. Without further preface, I proceed to state the manner in which I propose that these seats shall be filled up. The House will observe that the vacancies have been created by the disfranchisement of two boroughs; but although that is a consideration which I do not think the House should altogether lose sight of, Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that it in any way binds them to assign all these seats to boroughs. They, therefore, propose, in the first place, to assign two seats to the two largest counties—namely, one seat to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and one seat to South Lancashire. I will state the total population of these two counties, and also their population exclusive of the represented towns. The total population of the West Riding of Yorkshire, according to the census of 1851, was 1,315,896; and exclusive of the represented towns, it was 794,884. The total population of South Lancashire was even greater—namely, 1,570,000, but, exclusive of the represented towns, it was only 500,000. These two are the largest counties in England; the next two in point of size would be North Lancashire and Middlesex. Our proposal does not contemplate any division of those counties; this is a matter which is always one of great difficulty, and with regard to which differences of opinion arise. We propose to make no disturbance in existing boundaries, but simply to add one Member to the representation of each. There remain, then, two seats, which we propose to assign to boroughs. The first we propose to give to the united parishes of Chelsea and Kensington. It is possible that many hon. Gentlemen may entertain objections to adding to the number of metropolitan Members, may think that the metropolis is already sufficiently represented, and might prefer to assign the two seats to some rural borough. That is a matter which is fairly open to the consideration of the House, and, no doubt, when the Bill reaches Committee, the opinion of the House will he fully tested on it; but nevertheless I shall be fully prepared, when the proper time comes, to defend the selection which has been made, and I shall be surprised if the deliberate judgment of the House does not sanction it. The population of the parish of Chelsea at the last census—and I have no doubt it has since increased—was 56,538. Kensington, which has also increased, and where a large number of excellent houses have been recently erected, had a population amounting to 44,053. The united population of Chelsea and Kensington, therefore, at the last census was over 100,000, and I have no doubt is now considerably more; but that is a fact which will be ascertained in April next, inasmuch as we are then to take the next census. Some persons may say, "It is all very true that Kensington and Chelsea together form a considerable population, larger than any unrepresented town, but London must be taken as a whole; we must look at the whole number of Members for the metropolitan districts, and, looking at that number, we say that it is sufficiently represented." But if that argument be resorted to, I wish to call attention to what is the present population of London, because it is an important element in the question. I have obtained from the Registrar General an estimate of the population of London at the present time, which is made on a fair principle— namely, by supposing that London has increased in the same proportion in the last ten years as in the ten years previous. He estimates the population of London at the present time at 2,864,000. Hon. Gentlemen may, perhaps, wish to know what is the comparative population of Scotland. At the last census the entire population of Scotland was 2,862,000, nearly the same, or rather less, than what is now estimated to be the population of London. The House, therefore, will, I think, agree with me that, whether you look to the population of these two parishes standing alone, or take them in connection with this enormous Metropolis, it is difficult to deny their claim in one character or the other. With regard to the other seat, I propose to give it to the town of Birkenhead. It is a town which differs in character from the other three communities to which seats will be given. It is not a manufacturing place like the West Riding or South Lancashire, which may be said to a great extent to be manufacturing districts; it is not a metropolitan borough like Chelsea and Kensington; it is a commercial town, which has greatly increased within the last ten years. Its population at the last census was 24,000, and it has considerably increased since that time. It is now the most populous of the unrepresented towns. It might be said by some persons who take a general view of the subject, that if two boroughs such as Sudbury and St. Albans are disfranchised, their seats ought to be assigned to boroughs somewhat similar in character, or, at any rate, to the four largest unrepresented towns. If that principle of appropriation were adopted, the four boroughs selected would be Birkenhead, which had a population of 24,000; Staleybridge. which has 20,000; Burnley, which has 20,000; and Gravesend, which has 16,000. I cannot but think, however, that the choice which I have submitted to the House is preferable. It is the distribution of seats which, upon deliberation, the Government have decided to submit to the House, and it will be contained in the Bill which I am now asking permission to lay upon the table. I repeat, I hope the House will consider whether it is a fair and reasonable proposal. I do not lay claim to its possessing any extraordinary perfection, nor do I deny that other alternatives may be submitted to the House which may deserve their attention, but I maintain with confidence, that it is a fair and reasonable plan which merits their consideration, and which, having received their consideration, may, I trust, in the present Session of Parliament, meet with the support of a large majority of the House. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the appropriation of the Seats vacated by the Disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he did not wish, on that occasion, to go into the question at any length; but he could not allow what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet to pass without entering his protest against the scheme he had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the dealing with the four seats was a very important question, in which statement he (Mr. Bentinck) most fully concurred; but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he dealt with the distribution of these seats upon principle. But after listening attentively, he (Mr. Bentinck) was totally at a loss to discover what the principle was; but if he had any leaning of opinion it was that the right hon. Gentleman intended to act upon the principle of figures. If this were so, he could show him that he had totally lost sight of the real merits and justice of the case; but if he did not attempt to deal with the matter upon the principle of figures; he (Mr. Bentinck) was then utterly at a loss to understand the principle. If the question were one of figures, then he could show that not only those four seats, but every one of the next 130 or 140 which might become vacant ought in justice to be given to the rural counties of England. ["Oh! oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" but there was no gainsaying figures; and if the matter was to be decided on figures alone those seats must be given to the counties. Of course, if it were to be dealt with on other principles not yet explained, diferent considerations would come into view. It was almost superfluous for him to say that representation and taxation were convertible terms, and that when they discussed in that House what interest was to maintain its fair or unfair share of representation, the real battle they were fighting was what class of the community was to hear the heaviest or the lightest share of taxation. When once they began to deal afresh with the representation, they were bound to deal with the question as one of abstract justice, which could be supported by figures. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given no such reason, but had said that more specious plans might be suggested. He (Mr. Bentinck) most decidedly objected to specious plans, and simply asked the House to consider whether the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman proceeded was sound or not. Then as to that part of the proposition which was to add to the number of metropolitan Members—and he could not help thinking, that when the time came for discussing the details of the Bill it would be shown not expedient to adopt that part of the scheme—he would not go into the matter further than enter his protest against any tampering with the rights of the rural districts of England. One would imagine, from what one heard of Reform, that it consisted in nothing but large towns and railways, and that there was no such thing as a country, or of that part of the population which contributed most to out-wealth and security. He should he extremely sorry to argue that the great commercial emporiums of the country should not have their fair share of representatives, but what he did argue against was any attempt on the part of the boroughs to obtain a monopoly of representation. It was on these grounds that he protested against the scheme of the Government; and when the time came for entering into details he hoped to be able to show that the proposal was not founded on figures or in justice.

MR. STIRLING

said, he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the Universities of Scotland. Scotland was the only one of the three kingdoms that had no University representative. England had four University Members, and Ireland two; and be thought it would be conceded by the House that those Gentlemen enjoyed their seats to the advantage, not only of their respective constituencies, but of the nation at large. The right hon. Baronet said that his arrangement was based on figures. That being so, he (Mr. Stirling) wished to present the House with a few statistics, and they should be very few. Not many years ago it might have been said with truth that although Scotland had Universities she had no University constituencies; that those who received their education in those Universities had no concern with them after they left them; that they neither took degrees nor had any rights or privileges in connection with them. But Parliament, in its wisdom, amended that state of things. Three years ago Her Majesty's Government passed a measure known as the Scotch University Act, which had infused new life into the Universities. Short a time as it had been in operation, there was now in Scotland a very fair University constituency. Without going into the details respecting what was called the General Council of the Universities, which answered to the Convocation of Oxford and the Senate of Cambridge, the Scotch Universities had an aggregate constituency of 3,304. That, in itself, was a considerable number. It was larger than would be found in any book of reference, for the constituency was increasing, and he had obtained those figures on the previous day. The constituency of the University of Cambridge was 4,566; of Oxford 3,623; and of Dublin, 1,780; so that the constituency of the Universities of Scotland was much larger than that of the University of Dublin, nearly as large as that of the University of Oxford, and, he had no doubt, it might be as large as that of the University of Cambridge. There was no one of whose assistance he would have been inclined, on general grounds, to be more hopeful in respect of this matter than the right hon. Baronet. Surely such a constituency would be at least as intelligent as any of those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In England, members of the Universities were, as a general rule, only found in the better classes; but in Scotland the case was different, for University education was sought for and enjoyed by all classes of the community, from the peasant upwards. What was the problem which all or many statesmen tried to solve last year? Was it not to find a means by which intelligence without property might be permitted to enjoy some of the constitutional advantages of property, which had hitherto been considered to be the standard of electoral fitness? By admitting the constituencies of the Scotch Universities to the elective franchise they would be conferring a constitutional privilege on men whose intelligence qualified them for its exercise, yet many of whom might never obtain the necessary property qualification. Having made this suggestion, he would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would allow a sufficient time for the judgment of the country to be collected on this important subject. It would be only becoming to allow time for it to be considered by the country and criticised by the press. Should it not be taken up by some more influential Member, he should himself endeavour to take the sense of the House on the question to which he had now directed attention.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he would remind the House that by the Government Reform Bill of last year two of the seats were to have been given to Ireland and two to Scotland. The population of Scotland had been spoken of in somewhat contemptuous terms; but it was not less this year than last. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stirling) embodied his proposition in a substantial form, he would be glad to give him his support. Of the two Mem- bers who were to have been given to Ireland, one was to have been bestowed on the county of Cork, which contained 600,000 inhabitants, and the other on the city of Dublin, which had a population numbering 300,000. The population of Dublin had not decreased since last year, and that of the county Cork had increased since the time when the united wisdom of the Cabinet decided that it was entitled to one of the seats that was now about to be otherwise disposed of. These were matters which must be pressed upon the attention of the House if the present Bill ever reached that stage on which its details would be discussed, an eventuality which the right hon. Gentleman himself seemed to regard as problematical. As to the metropolis, he (Mr. Maguire) thought it was well represented. The metropolitan Members were among the most able, active, and intelligent in the House. They had a fair share of eloquence and a fail-share of wisdom. The metropolis was, therefore, admirably represented, and the Government and the House ought not to baulk Ireland. Justice had long been promised to her; but now the Cup was about to be dashed from her lip in consequence, he presumed, of political exigency.

MR. AYRTON

said, he should have been well content to have allowed this miserable abortion of a Bill to fall stillborn upon the table of the House without a word but for the observations made by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). He felt bound to say that if they had cause for great dissatifaction at the part played by the Government in abandoning the cause they had undertaken to advance, there was still much cause for satisfaction in finding that the hon. Member for Norfolk entertained such sound views upon the question of Reform. He had great hopes henceforth, he was happy to say, of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite (Conservative) side of the House; they had become so enlightened that Liberal Members might expect to get from them what had been denied by the hollow friends of Parliamentary Reform. He was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Norfolk say that representation and taxation should go together; and he doubtless recollected that the people of England, who paid one-half of the taxes, had now no right to send representatives to this House. The unenfranchised classes, when they despaired of obtaining justice from a Government which had betrayed them, would turn with confidence to so eminent a Conservative as the Member for Norfolk, who in his speech had maintained the principle which formed the very foundation of the rights claimed by them from Parliament. The hon. Gentleman declared that if justice were done the counties would receive 100 seats or more at the expense of the boroughs. The truth of this observation might be admitted. But what was justice? If they proceeded upon numbers as the basis of representation, the counties could not send Members to the House of Commons until county representation was based on numbers. When the hon. Member came down to the House with a Reform Bill, giving to the adult millions who, unenfranchised, lived in counties the right of representation, he (Mr. Ayrton) would be the last to deny the right of representation to the counties. But what Conservative had ever professed to give the counties that right? At present the right of voting in the counties was vested in comparatively few, while the adult males who possessed no vote might be counted by thousands, and therefore the counties were now not only well represented, but over-represented. If the hon. Member were prepared to make this concession, and to submit a Bill for the enfranchisement of these persons, he would have a right to transfer to the counties some of the seats now usurped by corrupt and rotten boroughs, and might overthrow any amount of political intrigue directed against a fair settlement of Parliamentary Reform. [Mr. Bentinck: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member said "Hear, hear;" but where was the Bill? Why had not the Conservative Government framed the Bill they introduced in accordance with the wishes expressed by the hon. Member on the present occasion? Had they done so they would have immortalized themselves, and would have received support not only from a large majority in the House, but from the nation at large; but, instead of doing that, they proceeded on the principle of keeping the representation in the hands of a comparatively small number. It was certainly gratifying to the metropolitan Members to be told that they were so singularly efficient; but he objected to be improved out of his own estate. He did not admit that they were so efficient; at all events, they had not that power of numbers which unfortunately, when any question of weight was brought under the notice of the House, prevailed far more than any amount of eloquent advocacy. With regard to the Bill, he did not admit the doctrine that numbers should constitute the basis of representation; and he regretted to see a Minister of the Crown proposing a measure to the House entirely upon that ground, for he did not think it a fair and statesmanlike mode of dealing with the question. If that doctrine were affirmed, the whole of the four seats ought to go to Ireland; but the constitution of the House of Commons had been settled on different principles. Those principles had been adopted after due investigation at the union of the two countries, and he believed that there were no good grounds now for changing the arrangement, and that Ireland could not claim to take a single representative from England. Representation was based not upon numbers only, but upon property, and on everything which contributed to the wealth, strength, and stability of a nation. He thought he should make a convert of the hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that, under proper conditions, it would be just and reasonable to add to the number of metropolitan representatives. But he did not mean to appeal to mere numbers in support of such an opinion; all the elements he had mentioned were to be considered whenever the question of representation was fairly discussed. It might not be conducive to the public interest that to numbers alone a great and overwhelming amount of representation should be intrusted. But the case of Chelsea and Kensington did not rest on this ground alone, though they comprised the largest unenfranchised constituency in England, and therefore had the first claim. He protested, however, against the attempt of the Government to escape from the performance of a great duty by presenting to the House this most trumpery Bill, and could not help expressing his sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman who had been used for such a purpose. If the part must he played out—the part of the ridiculus mus in the great mountain of Reform—there was but one person qualified for it, and that was the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). It was quite evident that the Government had taken advantage of the known goodnature of the right hon. Gentleman, and had imposed on him this —he could not say service, but this—ridiculous performance. The right hon. Gentleman always did his work well whatever it might be; but he hoped the House would not allow the right hon. the Home Secretary thus to be made a convenience of on the present occasion. The Liberal party should hold the Ministry to the fulfilment of their great duty. They took office for one great object, which they were bound to carry out. They had confederated to displace a former Government, and succeeded because men thought that that Government would not perform its duty conscientiously. They put that forward as the ground on which they invited their Sovereign to change her Ministers. Nay, more—they might be said to have foisted themselves upon their Sovereign, usurping her great prerogative; and, in so doing, they had been buoyed up by the popular sympathy accorded to them because they were believed to be entering office for the performance of that duty. But now that they had got into office they shrunk from the fulfilment of their own pledges under the hollowest pretence—that the Bill which they brought forward, but which was full of defects, was subjected to adverse criticism. They thus availed themselves of the badness of their own Bill to absolve themselves from the performance of their duty. Surely there never was such a contrivance. The Ministry would find when it was, perhaps, too late, that they had lost character and credit throughout the country. Every succeeding election would turn to their disadvantage; and, if they did not do their duty manfully they would sink down, step by step, until they slipped out of office altogether, objects of universal contempt and of universal scorn.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, we shall not be at all swayed, as I can assure the hon. Gentleman, nor are we at all daunted by the magnificent phillippic which he has just delivered. It may be well for the hon. Member to misrepresent the conduct of the Government. But we do not propose this measure as the substitute for a general measure of Reform. We stated, I think sufficiently, the reasons why we do not think it our duty in this Session to bring in what is called a great and comprehensive measure of Reform. Those, I think, who remember the course adopted last year by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as by those who sit opposite, can never feel in their hearts, whatever they may assume to feel, any great astonishment that the Government this Session have not called on the House to spend so many hours as were spent last year, not in discussing, but in evading and shelving that measure, which was shelved as much by the professed friends of Reform as by its opponents. I therefore repudiate, Sir, the whole of the insinuations of the hon. Gentleman as totally unfounded, and, as in no degree affecting the standing or character of Her Majesty's Government. We have, upon mature deliberation, come to the conviction that it would not have been for the public advantage for us to have called upon Parliament in the present Session to renew any long discussions on a comprehensive measure of Reform. But we did think it our duty not to permit these four seats to remain vacant any longer. The reason no arrangement was proposed before is, that from year to year it was thought they might be included in some large and general measure. Now, we certainly did not expect that any proposal we might make for the distribution of these four seats would not be met by an infinite number of counter proposals. These four seats belonged to English boroughs, and the natural arrangement appears to be that they should be allotted to four English constituencies. But we did not disguise from ourselves that the moment we made that proposal we should have some hon. Gentleman from Scotland rising to say that they ought to be given to Scotland; and that hon. Members from Ireland would claim them for Ireland. We knew that we should have, as we probably shall have, various Gentlemen proposing a different arrangement for England. It was not in the nature of things that, whatever proposals we might make, counter proposals would not be urged against them. But I am myself of the opinion that when the House comes to consider our plan, and those counter proposals in Committee, it will think that the arrangement made is as fair as any that can be proposed against it. It is quite true, that mere numbers ought not to be the principle on which the representation of this country is founded. The House of Commons is the great legislative machine of the nation, and ought to represent, not its numbers alone, but all its various interests; all its different intelligence, and all those elements that are essential to the proper action of the great assembly that is to direct its general policy and destinies. Well, I think the manner in which we propose to distribute these four seats is founded on that principle. The two places disfranchised are comparatively small boroughs; but we do not propose to give these seats to two other comparatively small towns; we pro- pose to give two of them to two great counties, in which there are both agricultural and manufacturing interests — interests that ought to have their opinions represented in this House. We give another Member to a place of a different character—a large and growing seaport town, with interests different to those of the counties. The fourth seat we propose to give to a new borough to be created out of a very increasing and thriving part of the Metropolis. Perhaps, that which in some degree excited the zeal and energy of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) against some hon. I Members who preceded him may have been the sounds—not articulate—that indicated an objection to any addition to the number of the metropolitan Members. That naturally excited some degree of warmth on the part of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He might, however, have been consoled by the compliments which were paid by those who spoke; and perhaps, the cheers that at one moment came from the other side of the House may have inspired him with an opinion that the views of the House were not so favourable to the proposal as might have been. I think, however, that Kensington and Chelsea are very fit places to be erected into boroughs. They include interests that deserve to be represented in this House; and I do not concur with those who think the proposal inexpedient, because it will be an addition to the metropolitan Members. I feel a great respect for those Members, and pay no regard to the opinion that has excited the indignation of the hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to go further into this subject at present; I think no case can be made for an addition to the Members of Scotland and Ireland. We are dealing with four seats that belong to England, that were forfeited in consequence of corruption. We had to look round England to find how we could best dispose of them for the public advantage. We have disposed of them by giving them to as great a variety of interests as could be consulted in that small number of seats; and when the House comes to consider the plan, I think it will be of opinion that it is as reasonable as any proposal that can be set against it.

MR. KNIGHTLEY

The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets appears to taunt the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) with having changed his opinion. The hon. Member must have been remiss in his attendance in the House. I have had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Member for West Norfolk speak often on this question, and I have always heard him use the same argument. The hon. Gentleman denies that my hon. Friend made out a case for the counties. I am unwilling to go into figures, but I have an extract from the Census of 1857 which is very short, and I will therefore venture to read it. It shows that the representation of England and Wales, under the Reform Act, is based on estimates of wealth and population, which give to the counties property of the annual value of £60,564,288; inhabited houses, 2,053,998; population, 10,495,930; while the number of county Members is 159. In the boroughs and cities the annual value of property is £42,898,247; the inhabited houses, 1,383,300; and the population, 7,431,679; while the number of borough Members is 337. Sir, on this side of the House we have never wished to maintain the present state of the county franchise; we have always wished to place the county and borough franchise on an equality in every respect. That was what the late Government proposed to do. They proposed to put the counties and the boroughs on the same footing. But, what did you do? You supported the Resolution of the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and refused to put them on the same footing. You destroyed the Bill of the late Government, and now a very nice little Reform Bill you have got instead of it. And how will this new borough of Chelsea-cum-Kensington act upon the county of Middlesex? It will not only have a Member of its own, but the 40s. freeholders within its precincts will materially intefere with the representation of Middlesex. In that county there are 14,000 electors; 8,000 of whom vote upon freehold property situated within the borough, so that the metropolitan constituencies not only vote in it for their own representatives, but interfere with the representation of the county. Is that fair or just? I say it is not. If the House will give the counties a fair representation, I, for one, am willing to lower the franchise. We have always been ready to give a far lower franchise than the present, if you would consent to place counties and boroughs on a perfect equality.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

There are some Members in this House, Sir, whose notions of Parliamentary Reform are so gigantic and colossal that any measure proposed to them is called a pitiful abortion. The Reform Bill of last year was called a "pitiful abortion," though now it is termed revolutionary and destructive. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has thought fit to denominate the present Bill a "miserable abortion," and seems to think I have been reduced to some kind of servile duty in having laid the measure before the House. Now, the Bill is one that disposes of four seats at present vacant, and that are wanting to the integrity of the number of this House. In 1853 the right hon. Member for Bucks proposed a measure precisely similar to this "miserable abortion." He asked leave to introduce a Bill assigning the four vacant seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire and the southern division of Lancashire—two to each. The plan was discussed, but, on a division, was rejected—not on the ground that it was a "pitiful" measure, but because it was thought the Government was not in a condition then to make any important proposition. I would also draw the attention of the House that there are two notices on the Votes for Bills by which it is proposed to assign two of these seats to particular places. If the Government were not to interpose there would be other Motions on the subject, as it is known it is not the intention of Government to bring forward any general measure this Session. The consequence would be great confusion and inconvenience, and I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the course which we have taken as the most convenient mode of dealing with the question.

Leave given.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS, VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL.

Bill presented, and read 1°.

House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.