[BILL 138.] SECOND READING.

HC Deb 14 May 1866 vol 183 cc874-921

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. DISRAELI

Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill to the notice of the House, he favoured us with the views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the subject of small boroughs. According to the views of Her Majesty's Government, those boroughs are not really liable to the charge that has so frequently been made against them; while, on the other hand, one of the merits that has usually been alleged in their favour was, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not deserved. With regard to the first point—namely, the imputation of bribery, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, and I entirely agree with them, that no charge can be made against the small boroughs particularly on that head. Unfortunately, it is not only the small boroughs of the country that are open to the imputation of venality in election mat- ters. On the contrary, we know very well that in the large proportion of small boroughs the elections are conducted in a manner creditable to their reputation. No doubt there are some in which a portion of the constituency are affected by the same improper influences that prevail in some of the larger boroughs. But that is an exercise of bribery which, however it be deprecated and deplored, is at least an evidence of a conflict of opinion. There are, unquestionably, cases of small boroughs in which it has been proved to the satisfaction of this House that venality has been organized and has been generally exercised; but the House has never met with any difficulty in dealing with such cases. Long before the Reform of the House of Commons, the instance of Grampound, among others, showed that our predecessors were perfectly able to deal with such cases, and St. Alban's and Sudbury, in our own time, have furnished similar examples. I shall not refer to the conduct of constituencies now under judicial inquiry, beyond expressing a hope that in the case of any constituency, where the charges made against it before a Committee of the House of Commons are satisfactorily proved before the tribunal appointed to investigate them, the precedents of Grampound, St. Alban's, and Sudbury will not be forgotten, and that we shall not see placed at the head of one of these new groups of boroughs a town which ought, I think, to be provided for in a very different and in a less honourable manner. With regard to the second point—the alleged merits of the small boroughs, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes they are not entitled,—I well recollect the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1859 on the subject of small boroughs—a speech which we, of course, all listened to with gratification, but which, I must say for myself, I heard with some degree of amazement. It appeared to me, indeed, to be the echo of the debates of 1832, which upon that subject were merely traditions of the 18th century. I would not attempt in any way to vindicate the small borough system, because these small boroughs have been the means of introducing into the House of Commons a Pitt, a Fox, and a Canning. In a free country, and under a popular Constitution, such men as Pitt, Pox, and Canning, will always, I believe, find a place in this Assembly. But I cannot help thinking that the view which Her Majesty's Government have taken of the system of small boroughs is too contracted and of too meagre a character; and, as I believe that in a right appreciation of the question very important consequences are involved, I would take this opportunity of begging the House most deliberately and seriously to reflect upon the subject and its consequences. Now I apprehend, or will at all events accept, that the real cause of all these Reform Bills which have been introduced since the passing of the great measure of 1832, has been to render this House a more complete representation of the country and of its various attributes. It is not difficult, it requires no profound or adroit statesmanship, to secure for the great producing interests of this country an ample and a satisfactory representation. The counties of England offer to the land, with its various products, and its accumulated capital, a natural and an easy mode of being represented in Parliament. The chief seats of industry furnish competent men in sufficient numbers to represent the wealth, the ingenuity, and the skill of our manufactures. Perhaps the mode by which a merchant may get into this House is not altogether so easy and obvious. But still we know that there are, and that there must always be, influential constituencies connected with the commerce and navigation of the country to whom a merchant of eminence may appeal with confidence for support. But there are a variety of interests in England, and connected with England, not only various but important and material interests, which cannot be ranged under the three heads of land, manufactures, or commerce. There are a variety of important trading interests of that character. There are also classes which are, perhaps, the most educated and enlightened in the country, and most considerable in their influence upon that public opinion which ultimately regulates our affairs—I mean the professional classes. And in employing that term, I do not refer merely to the learned professions, one of which cannot sit in this House and another will not—and, although I should deplore the time when we had not in our active legislation a sufficient number of gentlemen of the long robe, and should regret our again having an indoctum Parliamentum, I would refer particularly to those who, in the present day, carve out their fortunes and obtain their incomes by the application of science to social life, like the great body of civil engineers, for example, men of letters, too, and those who pursue the liberal arts as a profession. But, besides all these, we are to recollect that England is the metropolis of a great Colonial Empire; that she is at the head of a vast number of colonies, the majority of which are yearly increasing in wealth; and that every year these colonies send back to these shores their capital and their intelligence in the persons of distinguished men, who are naturally anxious that these interests should be represented in the House of Commons. And last, and perhaps the chiefest, there is our great Indian Empire. It was always the boast of this country that that distant, extensive, and gorgeous appanage was always represented in the House of Commons, and that no question could arise without the House, from the very bosom of its Members, and not merely from official sources, being able to command the assistance and information of men of accurate knowledge, and of the soundest judgments upon the matter. While we are, therefore, upon the second reading of the Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats, I wish to ask in what way these various interests and individuals are to be represented in the House of Commons if you do not retain the small borough system, or furnish some substitute for it? Let the House observe how the present system practically operates. A county Member, as a general rule, must be a resident. It is not merely that it is the custom of the country, but it is a practice which arises from the necessities of the case. The representative duties of a county Member are not confined to this House. They are also local and continuous, and therefore it is most natural that men, for such offices, will elect their neighbours and those who live among them. But the same feeling has of late years been equally characteristic of our great towns and cities. They have increased so much in population, in wealth, in education, and in intelligence, that they are able to find in their own community men capable of representing them in this House, and who possess not only the requisite knowledge and education, but the still rarer gift which before they could not command—leisure. This local feeling is becoming so strong generally that you will find it prevails to a great extent in all our considerable towns and cities. I always watch with interest the proceedings of general elections, and of the last three general elections I have observed this characteristic—that the local feeling is per- petually developing itself, and that in great numbers of constituencies where it was previously influential it has now become entirely predominant. What is the practical consequence of all this? Half of the House of Commons is really shut to all the considerable interests which are not ranged under the heads of land, manufactures, and commerce, to all the professional classes now growing daily more influential, and to the due representation of our colonial and Indian interests. These are very serious considerations, and they must be well weighed by the House before they consent to destroy or greatly change the machinery by which so desirable a result has hitherto been attained without, at all events, substituting some method equally efficacious. Now the House must remember that this is not a question as to whether the pride, the vanity, ambition, or even the interests of particular classes and particular individuals should be gratified. The presence of these men in this House may confer importance upon them, but their presence is equally important to the House itself. What I desire is, to see these interests and these views adequately represented, for, depend upon it, we shall lose influence if we are only represented by landlords and manufacturers. The question is one, therefore, which concerns the House of Commons as much or even more than the particular classes and individuals to whom I have referred. Now, I want for a moment to put this question as to the influence of small boroughs practically before the House. I will not indulge in rhetorical routine about Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Canning. I will bring you to the world in which we live, and ask you to form your opinions from instances and examples drawn from daily life. For example, I see before me a gallant Gentleman, a man acknowledged to possess brilliant accomplishments and attainments, but who upon one subject—his knowledge of the East—is perfectly unrivalled. If to-morrow the affairs of Persia, or any question connected with Central Asia, or the farthest Ind, came under discussion, he is precisely the man to whom the House would look for advice; and it is most expedient, therefore, that he should have a seat in this House, although, unfortunately, he sits on the other side. But why is he here? Because he has been sent here by the small borough of Frome, which you are going to disfranchise. [Sir GEORGE GREY: We do not propose to touch Frome.] I beg your pardon; it was touched in your first list; but, at any rate, the correction will not invalidate my argument—for to what place were we first indebted for sending the hon. and gallant Gentleman amongst us? It was the small borough of Reigate, which you do propose to disfranchise. There is a question which at this moment is even more interesting than even Parliamentary Reform or peace or war, and that is our monetary state. It is a subject which will probably be under our discussion very shortly, and the opinions of men of experience will be received by the House with interest upon the matter. I see before me a gentleman who, if he is not at this moment, was formerly Governor of the Bank of England. He was, I believe I may say, one of the best Governors that the Bank has ever had, and to what place do we owe his presence in this House? The small borough of Bridport, which you are going to disfranchise. But I will not take my instances entirely from the opposite side. I have below the gangway a friend whom everyone acknowledges should have a seat in this House, and who is looked upon as one admirably fitted for a place in this assembly—not on account of his great wealth, although we recognize him as the prince of British merchants, but on account of his character, integrity, and intelligence. He owes his presence in this House to the small borough of Huntingdon, which you are going to disfranchise. I am of opinion that men in the position of the Governor of the Bank of England should always be Members of the House of Commons. I have had some experience of the advantage of communication with Governors and Deputy Governors of the Bank, to whom I owe much. The Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, with whom I was placed in official communication, are both of them now Members of this House, though sitting on different sides. But they both sit for small boroughs. There is not an important colony at this moment which is not represented in this House by men of local experience, and yet they all sit for small boroughs. And now for India. The representation of India is not as strong as in the last Parliament. One cause of the present deficiency is the loss of a Minister whose absence I think we must all deplore, He had not, perhaps, all those qualities which enable a man to control a popular assembly; but every man must acknowledge that for administrative capacity and experience few men are equal to Lord Halifax. He was perfect master of the business of the great Departments of the State, and I have rarely met any man who was his equal in quickness of perception. Yet, when he spoke on Indian affairs, which he thoroughly understood, he spoke under the control and correction of independent Members who were his equals in that knowledge. I remember some who have been very much looked up to in this respect—Sir James Hogg, Sir John Willoughby, and Mr. Prinsep. Sir James Hogg was Member for Honiton, which you are going to disfranchise; Sir James Willoughby was Member for Leominster, which you are going to disfranchise; and Mr. Prinsep was Member for Harwich, which you are going to disfranchise. These are important facts, and the House should consider them seriously. I have, perhaps, as little interest in this question as any Member of this House. I do not owe my entrance into public life to a small borough, nor is there any probable prospect of my seeking refuge in one for the future. Nor do I think the party with which I have the honour to be connected, has any special interest in this particular system of small boroughs. But when we find that the complete representation of this country in its various attributes appears to have greatly depended upon this system of small boroughs, should we not very carefully consider the steps which are taken in regard to it? Thus, if you either destroy or greatly qualify that system, we should at least supply some adequate substitute. That is the point which I wish to impress upon you. Well, by this Bill it is proposed to deal very extensively with this small borough system. The measure proposes to disfranchise seventy-one seats. The assertion that the disfranchisement is not complete is simply a quibble; it is disfranchisement in disguise. Virtually you are reducing the small boroughs by one moiety, for I take it that the small boroughs may be set down as between 150 and 160. The reasons given for taking these seats are two. The first is that representation should be given to communities that have developed since the Reform Act of 1832 was passed. I entirely concur with Her Majesty's Government in that. I acknowledge that since 1832 have come into existence communities which in population, character, and property are worthy of direct representation in this House; and it is wise to give it to them. We have a list of such boroughs in the Bill before us; it is not very considerable in extent, and does not vary much from one which I recommended to your consideration seven years ago. I only regret that they have been denied during those seven years representation in Parliament. But how is that representation to be effected? Should it be effected, in the first instance, by adding to the number of Members of this House? I decline, Sir, upon this occasion, to give any definite opinion upon that point, because it is a complicated question which has never been properly discussed in this House, and would now lead us into discussions inconvenient to this debate. It is a moot point, and we leave it so at present. But there is a way by which representatives can be given to those boroughs without increasing the number of the Members of this House, and that is by decreasing the representative power of existing boroughs. I do not mean to say that that can be done upon any principle. It can only be done by virtue of what the Venetians called "reason of State:" and action from reason of State should be had recourse to with reserve, and only in order to effect an end universally acknowledged to be beneficial. I think we are perfectly justified under the circumstances in following the course which, by-the-bye, we ourselves first proposed to pursue in 1859, and curtail what we may call the redundant representation of some boroughs in order to complete the representation of others. The first object for which this revolution is proposed is to secure representation for those communities, the propriety of whose appearance in this House no one questions. I entirely concur in that proceeding, and in saying that I believe I express the feeling of the House. But the Government propose this great change for another object. It is not merely to give representatives to those places which are not represented, but to add representatives to places which are already represented. Many of the great towns and counties are to receive another Member. For example, three Members are allotted to Leeds, three to Manchester, and to a considerable number of other towns and counties. Well, this involves a new principle in our representation, the principle of plurality of representation. I think it is one to be looked upon with some doubt and suspicion. I do not see how it is consistent with our electoral system, which recoils from plurality of voting. That a man shall have only one vote is, I think, a right principle, If our constituencies, for example, were founded upon the rights of man, or upon the rights of numbers, I could easily understand that you must immediately defend the minority; and I do not know that there is any more obvious or easy method of doing so than to establish plurality of voting. In fact, I have always held that if you went as far as universal suffrage, or if you submitted to any very considerable extension of the franchise, plurality of voting would be a necessary consequence. But, if you establish your constituency on the principles that hitherto have been accepted as the Constitution of this country, if you look upon your constituency as a political body or order, numerous and various—very numerous and very various, I hope, but select—then I do not think you can have plurality of voting. Then men should be equal. The elector with £50,000 a year should have his vote, just as the elector of the West Hiding who lives upon his 30s. a week. The law of England recognizes, and I hold, nobly recognizes, equality—not of the man—but of the political citizen, who is invested with duties and privileges for the public good. I know it will be said that an elector with £50,000 a year has a great deal more influence than the elector who lives upon 30s. a week; he has the influence which results from his great fortune and his social following. I do not deny that he possesses that influence, and I say that he ought to have it. But does not the city of Manchester, when compared with one of the small boroughs represented in this House, also possess the extraordinary influence which the man of £50,000 a year has? The city of Manchester has only two Members, and the borough of Harwich has two Members. If, however, the interests of the city of Manchester are assailed, it is not the two Members who rise to support it, it is a score, it is a hundred Members, directly or indirectly interested in or connected with Manchester. But if the interests of the borough of Harwich are assailed what happens? We all know that a little before public business commences, one of the Members for Harwich rises, with representations from that borough; and though his arguments be perfectly irrefutable and his statements as clear as a mountain lake, yet you know they are met by loud cries of "Divide," and shouts of "Question." This is the way these un- fortunate men, while vindicating the rights and interests of their constituents, are assailed; and then we are told that in the House of Commons Manchester and Harwich have the same degree of influence! Why, Members are sent to this House to represent opinions, and not numbers. Is it at all necessary to represent your opinions and advocate your interests, that you should have a troop of representatives? There is a constituency quite as great as that of the West Riding since its division, and with a population scarcely less than the population of South Lancashire when its boroughs have been deducted—the Tower Hamlets; and I ask most sincerely, is there any constituency in this House more ably represented than the Tower Hamlets, and by one man? That hon. Gentleman is always in his place, and one of the most valuable and indefatigable attendants on our Committees; when any questions connected with the interests of his constituents are raised, which are complicated and numerous, he is always present discharging his duty, while in general debate he offers his opinions and his arguments in a manner which commands respect. It is ridiculous to ask for numbers to guard the interests of any community; so long as the present arrangements continue they are safe. What would be the consequence if you were to pursue the principles which you are now laying down? You must necessarily have great monotony in this House. If you once adopt the principle that the population and property of places are only to be considered in apportioning Members, you cannot stop at three, and the small constituencies may be by degrees entirely absorbed. You will have trains and troops of Members coming from one county and one place to this House. It is absurd to see six Members for South Lancashire walking into this House, six Members for only one Riding of Yorkshire, and three Members for this town and three for another. By this system the Members will be increased that, instead of this being a classic Senate, it will have something of the turbulent character of a Polish diet. I know it may be said, though I do not think it will be, that plurality of representation is no new arrangement, because it prevailed in the time of the Plantagenets. But that is a mere quibble, and no one will, I am sure, depend upon it. We know very well that when two Members were originally decided upon it was not with reference to any political principle or organization of political parties, which did not exist in those days. They were days when men really never acted alone. First of all, they had to travel to town together, because they were afraid of robbers. Then when they had to put up at an inn, they were obliged to sleep in a double-bedded room because they were afraid of ghosts. When taxes and benevolences were voted, with two members one was pretty sure to be present; and, on the whole, it was considered a convenient arrangement. As stated in the Paston Letters, two burgesses going to town from Norfolk would be good counsel to each other. It may be said with more reason that the Reform Act of 1832 did admit the principle of plurality of representatives. That is a graver answer; but although I think it is most wise as far as we can to adhere to the arrangement of that Act it is not immaculate; and the giving of three Members to half-a-dozen counties was not an acceptance by the Government of the day of the doctrine of plurality of Members, but a rough mode by which Lord Al-thorp settled the balance between the counties and the boroughs. It was thought absolutely necessary that there should be a certain number of county Members and a certain number of borough Members; but the original plan was to divide the counties with regard to the whole of England. There still was wanting a certain number of county Members, and Lord Althorp threw them to half-a-dozen—I think seven—counties, which he did not think large enough to divide. But he did not do this for the sake of plurality of representation. That evil precedent which has always been inconvenient, and never popular, appears to have been followed in the case of South Lancashire. Had, however, the suggestion of 1859 been accepted, the House need not have been in the situation to have followed that precedent. We proposed in 1859 that South Lancashire should be divided, and to give it two additional Members, but now you will be embarrassed by six. It may be said that the view I am now pressing upon the consideration of the House is inconsistent with those views which I have so long and so frequently urged as to the claims of the counties for increased representation. I think the House, if it will deign to reflect for a moment, will find no inconsistency so far as I am concerned in the matter. In the year 1847, in answer to Mr. Hume, when he brought forward his Motion for Parliamentary Reform, I first in detail laid before the House the claims of the counties. Mr. Hume's argument was this: he said that population was the only principle upon which representation ought to be settled. "Therefore," he said, "you must disfranchise the small boroughs, and give their representatives to the great towns." In general that was the scheme and the theory of Mr. Hume. Well, in 1847, it was my duty to reply to Mr. Hume's annual Motion. I then, for the sake of argument, accepted his premises; but I arrived at a different conclusion—namely, that you must give the representatives taken from the small boroughs, not to the great towns, but to the counties. Mr. Hume was the most good-natured of men, an indefatigable Member of Parliament, but he had certainly one fault: he would deal with every subject, and in dealing with Parliamentary Reform he did not bring to its consideration adequate knowledge, and could not clearly discern the right conclusion to be drawn from his own premises. We went on thus for several years, and when Lord John Russell, in 1852, in his Reform Bill, pro-posed a considerable disfranchisement of the smaller boroughs, he also proposed that almost all their Members, to the number, I think, of forty-five, should be given to counties, and he then said publicly that he did so in consequence of the views which I had placed before this House, feeling it impossible to resist the conclusion at which they pointed. But, although Lord John Russell accepted my premises, I never adopted his conclusions; I never proposed that all those Members should be given to the counties, because I knew that by this remarkable system of small boroughs now under discussion the counties did find a countervailing and compensatory influence, which, though it might not fully satisfy their just claims, did afford, in a certain degree, if not a complete, an ample representation of the landed interest. Therefore, I did not counsel a violent change, such as the destruction of the small borough spstem would involve, bound up as it is with so many other important interests. I was for keeping things as they are, for I have always felt that the partial representation of the landed interest by means of these small boroughs gives some variety, some valuable variety, to the representation, supplies a certain element of independent character, and, on the whole, I think, has acted beneficially upon the constitution of this House.

Having shown that what I have now stated is not inconsistent with the views which I mentioned before, I come to the general scheme of this Bill. How are all these new seats to be obtained? By what arrangement are we to have counties sending in their six Members and cities their three Members, giving so much uniformity of elements and character to the representation in this House? It is to be effected by what is called a system of grouping. This must be considered under two heads. In the first place, I would remind the House that grouping is altogether foreign to this country; in the second place, that the grouping of representative boroughs is altogether foreign to this kingdom. The House is well acquainted by this time with the grouping of boroughs proposed by the Government. My objection to this system of grouping, which consists entirely of grouping representative boroughs, is that it aggravates anomalies, and that by a process of wanton injustice. It succeeds only in producing an incomplete and imperfect local representation. In the first place, view it with regard to expenditure—a most important consideration. When you come to group representative boroughs, you are grouping societies, all of which have organized parties, have traditionary politics, have committees and agents, that for a century and more have managed the political interests of the society in which they live. When you address those coalesced societies, this group of boroughs, you are, in fact, involved in a treble expenditure. Instead of curtailing the vast expenditure which entrance into Parliament unfortunately entails upon a Member, you are legislating in a mode that must greatly increase it. But while you not only pursue a system which must greatly increase expenditure, you aggravate anomalies, and that by a process of what I would call unnecessary and wanton injustice. I will take a case, because, after all, there is nothing like an illustration; and I will take a borough which is represented on both sides of the House. Dorchester returns two Members to Parliament, and it is to be grouped with the borough of Wareham returning one Member. Dorchester and Wareham, now represented by three Members, are to be represented by only one. The united population of those places will be 14,500, represented by one Member and losing two. But close by them is Poole, just above the magical number of 8,000, and represented by two Members! Take, again, the case of Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme. These three boroughs are represented now by five Members, and their united population will amount to 15,000. Instead of five Members they are to be represented by one; and close to them will be the borough of Tiverton, which being also just above the magical number will be represented by two Members. This is indiscreet and wanton injustice. I can understand your taking away one Member or two Members from these three boroughs, and to attain a great public object I can understand your taking away three or even four Members; but what I cannot understand is why the boroughs called on to make such immense sacrifices should find their united population of 15,000 represented only by one Member, when a borough close by with 8,000 inhabitants has two. A small borough may be considered an anomaly, and an ancient constitution will be always full of anomalies. But, at any rate, this must be said for the small boroughs, that they are ancient, and that they are convenient; but these groups are neither prescriptive nor convenient. The only result will be that you will create great jealousies, aggravate anomalies, and produce a constituency not homogeneous, and which can be only appealed to by costly and complicated means of corruption. What will result from grouping but the caucus system of America? Some able man will devote his energies—it will become a profession—to securing a majority in two of the boroughs, he will then make his arrangements with the candidate, and the third borough will be neither consulted or represented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this question was influenced by the example of the Scotch burghs, where this system of grouping is successful. But I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed an error—which I shall also have to advert to on another subject—he reasoned, I think, from a false analogy. There is no analogy between the grouped boroughs of Scotland and of England, as proposed by this Bill. In the first place, our boroughs to be grouped are represented boroughs, and in the case of Scotland they were unrepresented boroughs, or rather boroughs without constituencies. And the difference is very considerable. One of the great mis- chiefs in England will be the great distances at which some of these boroughs thus united are placed. No doubt, in Scotland, the distances are as great, or greater; but observe this difference between the two countries. Between the boroughs grouped in Scotland there is generally nothing but the country; but between the boroughs grouped in England, there are flourishing and rising unrepresented towns, which, many of them, far exceed in wealth and importance the boroughs that are thus grouped. All these towns may have submitted for a considerable time, and might yet submit, to what they deem to be the ancient Constitution of the country. But if you choose to change that Constitution, they naturally say, "Do not have recourse to so violent and fantastic a scheme as this, the combining of represented towns thirty miles apart, while we, in the interval, are left utterly unrepresented, being all the time in point of population, of property, and of the future that awaits us, the persons that ought to enjoy representation." I come then to the conclusion that any system of grouping founded on the grouping of represented towns must prove a complete failure, will disappoint all expectations, and is one that this House ought not to sanction. As a general rule, I should say, in periodically, but not too often, reviewing our representative system and making our borough representation more complete and satisfactory, the true principle is in moderation and discretion to reduce the representation of the old boroughs, and to apply that redundancy to the representation of new boroughs, so that no place shall be perfectly disfranchised. It has always been our custom in this country, and one which I trust we shall not depart from, to treat with tenderness prescriptive rights, and I am quite certain that any Minister who dealt in that spirit with the old boroughs, would receive a more sincere support than he possibly can attain by anything so violent and fanciful as the scheme of grouping represented boroughs which is placed before us.

But am I therefore an opponent of the system of grouping? Far from it. I think it is one that well deserves the earnest consideration of the House; it is a powerful and an efficient instrument, if used with vigour and discretion. But where I think it might be of great advantage would be if we were to leave the present boroughs alone, and yet avail ourselves of their redundant representation, applying the principle of grouping to our unrepresented boroughs. Now, I am quite certain if that were done, as I say, with vigour and discretion, you would add considerably to the efficiency of the constituencies, and at the same time you would go a great way towards the solution of those immense difficulties connected with the county franchise which beset every Ministry who attempt to deal with this question, and which the present Ministry have not attempted to encounter. Let me give a striking illustration of what would be the effect of adopting the system of grouping our unrepresented towns. I do not know that the advantage of the system could be put in a more striking manner than by reference to some places with which the House is familiar. Now, take the first of the new boroughs to be enfranchised—and I willingly and cordially approve the proposition to enfranchise them. Let me take the town of Middlesborough, in Yorkshire—a town which has very recently risen into existence, principally from the ironstone of the Cleveland hills. In 1859 it was impossible we could give a representative to Middlesborough; but it is now a town of 19,000 inhabitants, and, no doubt, it is increasing rapidly. That population is not so very large and extensive that its claim to a representative, if there was not a convenient opportunity for entertaining it, should disturb the country by the agitation for a measure of Reform. I do not, however, find fault with the Government for the proposal to enfranchise it, because I have great confidence in its future; but close to Middlesborough is an important and flourishing town, Stockton-on-Tees, with a population of 13,300. I would join the two, which would make an electoral population of 32,300. That is the way in which I would treat Middlesborough. Will the House now allow me to call their attention to Dewsbury. I mention it because it is the only one of those places—with the exception of Middlesborough, which did not exist—that I, as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, did not propose to enfranchise. I was perfectly well aware of its claims, but its population did not warrant such a proposal then. Even now it is only 18,100 There, again, you would not agitate the country for a measure of Parliamentary Reform to give a Member to Dewsbury; but you will find that it is the centre of a cluster of towns, engaged in the same industrial pursuits, and distinguished by the same energy. I would take all these towns, the furthest of which is not, I believe, more than five or six miles from Dewsbury. They are almost conterminous—Batley, with a population of 7,200; the parish of Birstall, including Cleckheaton, 44,721; Heckmond-wike, 8,600; Merfield, 9,263; and others, making in all a population of 73,289. Joining these with Dewsbury, you would have a population of 91,389. That is what I call grouping. You would do more by such a system to improve the representation of the people than you can possibly do by those fantastic arrangements through which you are attacking ancient prescription. Let us come then to Burnley. It is our old friend; it was introduced by us in the Bill of 1852; and every one has been trying to enfranchise Burnley ever since. Burnley had only about 20,000 inhabitants when Lord Russell commenced with it. It has now 28,700—no doubt a very respectable population, but nothing extraordinary. You have near it Cilne, with a population of 6,300; Padiham, 5,600; Accrington, 13,800; Todmorden, 11,800–37,500. Add these to Burnley, and you will have a population of 65,200. That is the way to group. Take a fourth borough, one which we have all proposed to give a Member to. The population of Staleybridge has increased during the last seven years; but the population of towns near it—which were of importance in 1859, but not of sufficient importance to justify us in dealing with them—has also increased. There are three towns intimately connected with Staleybridge—Glossop, with a population of 19,000; Hyde, with 13,700; and Dun-kinfield, with 15,000, or with a united population of 47,700. If you join these towns to Staleybridge you will have a population of 72,700. I will say nothing about Hartlepool, because I believe that it is proposed to unite the two Hartlepools, and I am sure that such a constituency will send us good men. Then I would add Dartford to Gravesend, and, the population of the former being 5,300, and that of the latter 18,800, you would have a population of 24,100. By grouping in this way I think you would obtain a very considerable accession to the constituency; and I believe that if you dealt with the question in such a manner you would have the friendly cooperation of the old boroughs themselves. Having touched on the question of grouping, and on the manner in which, if this Bill should be carried, additional Members are to be furnished, what I want to impress on the House at this moment is the important effect which dealing with the subject in this manner—if the Government would adopt it—would have on the vexed question of the county franchise, which I recommend to the earnest consideration of the House. Do not let us look on this Bill as a mere party measure, or as a Motion such as that of the hon. Member for Surrey, which may be carried or not this year, and for which, if it be carried or should fail, a remedy may be found next year. Let us feel that our legislation on this question of Parliamentary Reform will affect the future of this country. Generations after us will feel the consequences of what we are doing at this moment; and, for my part, I should be sorry that when I have left the scene my name should ever be recalled as that of one who supported a measure which injuriously affected the character of the Constitution of this country—a Constitution to which we are all so indebted. On a former occasion, though I did not evade the other portions of the proposal of the Government, I touched particularly on the subject of the county constituencies, because I thought it had not been sufficiently treated. I asked the House to consider what the effect would be on our county constituencies of a great reduction of the franchise when, at the same time, causes were in operation which were continually changing the distinctive character of those constituencies. Though I was ready, as I always have been ready and am ready now, to treat this question in a large and liberal spirit, what I contended for—not in the interests of party, not in the interests of this side of the House, but in the interests of the country—was that you should maintain the distinctive character of the county constituencies. If that be true which was said by the great master of politics—it is wise that the energy and enterprize of cities should be tempered by the repose and steadfastness of the country—if that be true, it is the interest of every one in this House that we should, if possible, make the character of the county constituencies really what it assumes to be. Unquestionably one of the means by which the character of the county constituencies is perverted is this—that in the counties there are a great number of towns which have distinctive interests of their own, and which ought to be represented, but are not represented. There can be no doubt that these towns very much change the character which otherwise would be pe- culiar to the constituencies of the counties; but if you were to group on the system which I have pointed out you might do much to get rid of that perversion of the character of the county constituencies.

There is another way of doing it which I placed before the House at great length on a former occasion, and which I will now merely allude to—that is, the revision of the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs. I was told at the time that when this Bill was brought forward we should find an arrangement which would meet objections of that kind. But I must say I have been entirely disappointed in that expectation. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that head has been utterly unsatisfactory. I stated that the Parliamentary boundaries was the second great cause why the character of the county constituency is perverted. It is difficult to contend against that even with a high occupation franchise. But when you lower the franchise you aggravate all the sources of injury, and at the same time you offer no remedy whatever for the evils which exist. Now, what do I find? The Government repudiates altogether a general revision of the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs. But it says,, on the other hand, "We have a scheme, and that is that the boundaries of Parliamentary and municipal boroughs should be identical." [Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to express dissent.] I read in the Bill that the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are to be identical. It is a slight matter, for, having gone through all the cases—I will not trouble the House with details, for I have taken up too much of its time already—where the municipal and Parliamentary boundaries are different, the instances are so rare that they will not at all affect the main issue, nor will they remedy the grievance of which we complain. According to the rest of the scheme, you propose to call the extra municipal population into the circle of the Parliamentary borough, if that population desire it. But that they would desire it, that the extra municipal population would become Parliamentary, appears to me to be very doubtful, because the reason why people build their mills and their houses without the municipal boundary is that they should not be subject to municipal rates. As the desire of the extra municipal population is to be the moving point of the arrangement, I believe that very little will be done.

Now, these are the two heads under which the great evil of which we complain is aggravated. That great evil is that since the boundaries have been settled there has been an increase of 3,000,000 in the urban population, and from that population the county electors are to be qualified by this new Bill. There was an extraordinary argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I allude to it because it is another instance of the false analogy in which he indulges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"Take care how you revise the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs. Take care not to press the matter too far. If we revise the boundaries of Birmingham and the great northern towns, we must revise the Parliamentary boundaries of other boroughs in England to which agricultural districts have been appended." Sir, that is no answer what ever. What I say is this, "Support the settlement made by the Reform Act." The balance of influence that was settled by the Reform Act, is what we want you to maintain. That settlement was not made in favour of the Conservative party. It was made by a Liberal Government—a Liberal Government supported by an immense Liberal majority, and therefore we have a right to conclude that very little favour was shown to us. We find that the boundaries for 1832 have in the large towns practically been entirely violated, and violated to the injury of the legitimate influence of the county population. And what is your answer? Where the population has not increased, because in that part of the country in which the agricultural boroughs are situated the population has not increased, in answer to us, who are seeking to maintain the settlement of 1832, and to save ourselves from the violation of our boundaries, you reply, "Oh ! we must examine the boundaries in the other parts of England where they have not been violated."

Well, Sir, I have asked the House to consider those questions, which are particular points in the Bill we are asked to read a second time, and which refer principally to the borough franchise, but upon the right understanding of which the county franchise particularly depends. We are called upon greatly to reduce the county franchise. We complain that even as the franchise is now arranged there are certain evils which call for a remedy. There is a large mass of the population to whom we do not grudge the franchise, but to whom we say, "Exercise it where your industry, capital, and interests are placed." We complain that even with the present occupation franchise the legitimate influence of the counties is interfered with. You do nothing in this Bill, whether by the grouping of boroughs or the settlement of boundaries to give us relief. You offer no remedy in any way for that most anomalous grievance by which the freeholder of a borough votes not for the place in which his freehold is contained, but for a place with which he has no connection. That evil you immensely aggravate by the present Bill, because all those boroughs which we are going to enfranchise now possess a great number of freeholders, and there again you obtain a great increase of the county voters. In addition to this, you menace us with legions of town leaseholders. How are we to deal with the Government when they meet us in such a spirit? How are we to meet them? If the Government came forward and said, "This is a great occasion, and we are perfectly aware of the justice of your claims. In our judgment you may take an extreme view on this point. But we feel there is propriety in your requisition. At any rate, you may depend upon our anxiety to meet in a legitimate manner the different wants and wishes of all classes in the community." But the position in which we have long been placed, and which is an unjust position, is now to be agravated. You have additional sources of injury to turn against us. Now lot me remind the House of the circumstances under which these measures have been introduced to us. What I am about to say is known to every Gentleman on this side, and I believe to the vast majority on the other. If, when Parliament met, a measure for the improvement of the representation of the people, temperate, well-digested, and tolerably fair, had been brought forward, it would have been my duty, with the entire advice and concurrence of all with whom I act, to have agreed to the second reading. No secret was made of that. It was unnecessary to intimate it. It was the course we have invariably pursued. In 1860, when Lord John Russell introduced his measure, that was the line of action which we followed. We immediately consented to the second reading, and that measure, though defeated, was not defeated by the Conservative party. Lord John Russell himself admitted that. He has left it on record, and I shall repeat his words. In his own terse language he says— I was defeated by the Liberal party—and not only by the Liberal party, but by those Members of the Liberal party who represent great constituencies. I was astonished to hear the Secretary of State impute to us in 1860 that we loaded the paper with Amendments. What more natural? Is it not always understood that you are to exert yourselves to the utmost to improve a measure of this kind and make it generally advantageous! What an extraordinary charge! We had agreed to the second reading; and, singular proof of the hostility of the Opposition, we absolutely put Amendments on the paper. I say, then, that the extraordinary delay as regards this measure is not to be attributed to us. It is difficult to know to whom it is to be attributed—I would not say it is difficult, but it is disagreeable. My object to-night is to touch upon things of another kind. I will not advert to the unfortunate conduct of the Government in the management of their Bills. A great deal of time has undoubtedly been lost; but to whomsoever the fault may be attributed this I will say, it is not want of time that will prevent this Bill being fairly considered, and, if a good measure, being passed. We can all of us make a great effort if time be the only thing wanting. We could sit in the morning and in the evening. We could cheerfully devote ourselves to a task which was necessary, which the country required, the object of which was clearly understood by us, and which was clearly understood by its projectors. The House of Commons would soon make up for lost time. But, Sir, the cause of the Bill not advancing, the cause of the uncomfortable position in which the country, the House of Commons, and the Government are placed with regard to this measure is other than loss of time. I am sure I do not at this moment wish to say anything which could disturb the self-complacency of any individual in this House, but there are moments when one must be frank. When there is so much at stake—when there is so much at stake as the future of a great Empire, one must speak out; though so far from wishing to offend any one, I say that, to use an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I do offend any one, I apologize for it beforehand. But it is not time, it is not want of time, that prevents our legislating in the matter. It is something else—I say it sincerely, and I wish to speak temperately—it is the want of maturity both in design and in preparation which has attended the measures of the Government in this matter. Now, Sir, permit me very briefly to prove that statement, for it is of importance when we are called upon to read a Bill of this magnitude for the second time after only a week's consideration. Talk of wasting time. At any rate, that was a course that was compensatory for such laches. When Parliament met we were promised information—papers upon the position of the borough franchise. They were not given to us for a considerable period. I wish to speak my own opinion sincerely with regard to those papers. I think them very valuable papers, and though they may have been, and unquestionably it was proved that they were, hurriedly prepared in some cases, I believe they were bonâ fide, and prepared with ability and sincerity. Well, Sir, those papers were placed before us; though the House will recollect the almost despairing expressions of the Secretary of State when we pressed him for those papers, which conveyed to the House little prospect of their ever appearing, only a few days or hours before the introduction of the Bill, when wet from the press, and confessedly, I think, not read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were placed upon the table. They were, as I say, very important papers, and I, for one, received them with that respect which was due to the source from which they originated. Let it be remembered, however, that not only were they hurriedly prepared, but that the principal patron of the Government, the highest authority on the subject, after having examined them, rose in his place and informed the House that they were utterly untrustworthy. Well, Sir, there is another branch of information which was required upon this important subject, and that was information respecting the condition of the county franchise. None was given to us, to the great disappointment and surprise of the House. But, although no information, no statistics, no papers respecting the county franchise were given, it would be unfair in me if I did not admit that we were amply and frankly informed of the views of Her Majesty's Government on that important subject, especially with reference to the point which is the origin of this legislation—namely, the position which the working classes occupy in the constituencies. The papers which the Government hurriedly placed before us with regard to the borough franchise produced a considerable sensation in the House, because they proved, and proved, I think, conclusively, that the working classes already possessed a considerable status in the borough franchise. But Her Majesty's Government, though they gave us no papers respecting the county franchise, did frankly and explicitly give us the result of their deliberations on that subject, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chief organ of the Government in this House, and especially on this subject, informed us that in the county franchise the working classes were an infinitesimal quantity; and, in fact, that no papers wore produced as to their position with regard to the county franchise, because, in their opinion, they possessed no share in that franchise. You remember the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I, in an unhappy moment, not wishing to give any offence, made an observation across the table—I will never make one again—and on account of that observation I was violently denounced by the right hon. Gentle man, in fact, I was frightened out of my wits, "There may," he said, "be some few working men in your county who have votes, but in county constituencies the working man is as the fly in a pot of ointment." Those were his words—I never shall forget his glance. Well, Sir, from that moment I have been engaged, with the assistance of some gentlemen who are practised in such matters, in endeavouring to obtain information upon this subject It is entirely foreign to my habit ever to offer to the House any statistical information which, as a private Member, I may obtain. I think that in our debates, as a general rule, nothing is more salutary than that we should argue, and certainly that we should legislate, only from authentic and official statistics furnished by the Government. But there are cases, when the Government makes statements which you doubt—when they do not furnish you with information—when they decline to furnish you with information—when they scoff at you for asking for information—there are cases when you are thrown upon your own resources, and I should be grateful to any man who had been long sitting in this House, and who had been not altogether unaccustomed to the management of such affairs, if, with the becoming modesty which such a situation would require, he offered—not for the adoption of the House, but for its consideration—such results as he may have arrived at. What, therefore, I am going to say I do not want the House to accept with any unreasoning credulity, but in that spirit in which I would accept them when in Parliamentary life I received such communications. We have—I will not yet say completely—but thoroughly investigated the subject, and we received communications from many parts of the kingdom. We received them from men in official positions who could give us authentic information, and I am bound to say we have received that information from Gentlemen of Liberal opinions as freely and as numerously as from gentlemen of Conservative opinions. We have only had one object, which was to arrive at the truth; and the result at which we have arrived at is this—of course the details are in some instances imperfect, but in others they are very ample—the result is this, and I believe it will eventually be demonstrated if the Government, as I hope, will give orders for an official investigation into these matters—that the working men of England have a larger share of the county constituency than they have even of the borough constituency, and by which the Government were so startled I ask the House, then, is not this another evidence of the immaturity in which all these matters have been dealt with? Let me presume to say that in dealing with this portion of the subject—namely, the county franchise—a Government who really believed that the working classes had no share whatever in the constituencies were scarcely qualified to address the House in the manner in which we have been recently addressed, and told that if we did not pass these measures instantly Parliament should never be prorogued. And now I pass to the third subject, on which I venture to say the same immaturity has been exemplified, and that is the subject of Parliamentary boundaries. It is quite clear that when the Bill was first brought forward in this House this subject was one which had hardly occurred to the Government, and had occurred to them only as one of comparative insignificance. It is no answer to me to say, "You did not vigorously deal with it in 1859."We did something, but the years that have succeeded 1859 have immensely aggravated the circumstances; and what the House has to decide is not upon the comparative laches of one Ministry and another, but upon what ought to be done for the public good. I say, then, that the manner in which that subject has been treated, and now hurriedly dealt with by the Government, is a third proof of the immaturity of their proceedings in this matter. Well, Sir, the fourth proof, I think, is the Bill before the House. If there be a subject which can most tax the depth and discretion of a Ministry, it is the distribution of Parliamentary seats, which is, in fact, the distribution of political power in this country; and I say that it was impossible to have produced a scheme upon the subject more troublesome, more vexatious, and which, at the same time, produced less satisfactory results. But are we to be surprised at such consequences? Is it not notorious that when the Franchise Bill was introduced the Minister who introduced it never even contemplated a Bill for the redistribution of seats; and that this vast subject, which required so much thought, so much research, so much temper, at the same time such forbearance and such firmness, was never considered except in the few hasty days—or hours rather—which they snatched from other engrossing labours during the agitated fortnight between which it was promised and produced? Is this, or is it not, another proof of the immaturity with which all these measures have been prepared?

Well, Sir, I am told as I walk down to the House of Commons every day—by the man in the street as I walk down Parliament Street—ibam fortè viâ sacra—somebody tells me, "I hope you are going to settle the question." Sir, ignorance never settles a question. Questions must be settled by knowledge, and it is not the vexation of an opposition, from whichever side of the House it may come, that prevents this Bill from advancing. It is that we none of us see our way. I say it with a frankness that I trust will be pardoned, I do not believe the question of Parliamentary Reform is thoroughly understood by the country—is thoroughly understood by this House; and although I dare only utter it in a whisper, I do not believe that it is thoroughly understood by Her Majesty's Government. I often remember with pleasure a passage in Plato where the great sage descants upon what he calls "double ignorance," and that is where a man is ignorant that he is ignorant. But, Sir, in legislating there is another kind of double ignorance that is fatal. There is, in the first place, an ignorance of principles, and, in the second, an ignorance of facts. And that is our position in dealing with this important question. There is not a majority in this House that can decide upon the principles upon which we ought to legislate in regard to this matter; there is not a man in this House who has at his command any reliable facts upon which he can decide those principles. But then the question arises—What are we to do? I admit the difficulty. I do not shut my eyes to the position in which we are placed. The country, the House of Commons, the Ministry, are—it is a classical although it may seem an idiomatic phrase, as it was used by Dean Swift—in a scrape. I should despair of escaping from this perplexity and this predicament had I not an unlimited confidence in the good nature and the good sense of the House of Commons. We must help the Government. We must forget the last two months. The right hon. Gentleman must re-cross the Rubicon, we must rebuild his bridges, and supply him with vessels. The right hon. Gentleman is in a position in which he can retire from this question of Reform for the moment with dignity to himself and to his colleagues. He must not sacrifice his country, his party, or his own great name to a feeling of pique. He is still supported by a majority; he is not in the position of a Minister whose reputation and the fortune of whose Cabinet are staked upon individual measures in a House wherein it is known that he is in a minority. That has been the unfortunate position of others, but it is not his. He occupies a far different position. In deference to what I believe to be the wish of the country and the desire of the House of Commons, what has he to do? It seems to me that the most advantageous and the most dignified course for him to adopt would be this—Let him at once give instructions that complete and accurate statistics shall be prepared with regard to the borough franchise—not hurriedly, but with time and with attention, and in an impartial manner, so that no person shall be able to rise and say that we are called upon to legislate upon this question upon facts which are utterly untrustworthy. Let him, recognizing the unfortunate admissions which the Government made under the mistaken views which they adopted with reference to the county constituencies, give immediate orders that the most ample information should be acquired as to the share which the working classes of this country possess in the county franchise; let him direct that such information should be provided with care and discrimination. I think such inquiries may be trusted with safety and security to these persons who have provided us with the information we now hare relat- ing to boroughs, and which I believe to be imperfect merely on account of the hurried manner in which it was produced. Let the right hon. Gentleman, then, to-morrow, after consultation with his colleagues, give orders that sub-commissioners, acting under the Inclosure Commissioners, should visit all the Parliamentary boroughs of England and examine and report upon their boundaries. Let the right hon. Gentleman give up this scheme of grouping represented boroughs, which he must see is repudiated by both sides of the House; let him boldly acknowledge that the proper way of dealing with the subject is to appeal to the spirit of justice of the represented boroughs to spare him a few Members from their superfluity; let him prepare a well-digested and complete scheme, which will give representation where required upon the principle of grouping the unrepresented towns of the country; and, having done all these things, let him consider the results with his colleagues, and when Parliament meets again he will have the opportunity—which I am willing to give him every credit for—of submitting to our consideration a measure which will command the sympathies of the country, and which will obtain the sanction of Parliament.

MR. CARDWELL

Sir, whoever undertakes to submit to this House a measure intended to reform the present system of the representation of the people must he prepared to encounter many difficulties and much criticism, involving many plausible objections, which, on a first hearing, it may be difficult to answer, because we are dealing with the most complicated form of government known to history; and it is a condition of the problem that we shall not found our argument upon abstract principles, but upon principles laid down by our Constitution; and we must endeavour, by amendment boldly made, to deal in a practical way with the great difficulties that Time, the great innovator, has permitted to grow up. If this is the natural expectation, the history of former Reform Bills shows that it is confirmed by experience. The great Reform Act of 1832 was met by objections far more formidable and criticism far more searching than that which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced against the present measure. Yet of that Bill the right hon. Gentleman himself was the supporter, and is now constantly the eulogizer and the advocate; and the noble Lord at the head of the party opposite, with the noble Lord at the head of the present Government, were among its most powerful and most eminent supporters; and it is now universally admitted to have been one of the most beneficial measures that has passed the Legislature within living memory. If we look at the Bills proposed of late years, we find that each of these Bills has been met in a similar manner on its introduction into this House. The first of those Bills—that of 1852—proposed to deal with the small boroughs precisely as the right hon. Gentleman has recommended to-night—it proposed to unite with the then existing boroughs the smaller unrepresented towns. Yet that Bill never lived to see the light of day; it was never put to the test of discussion in this House—and I believe it was a fortunate end, for its premature decease saved it from the trouble that wa3 in store for it. If it had been debated in this House it would have been the most unfortunate of the whole series, for it had the largest number of enemies and the smallest number of friends of any Bill ever introduced upon the subject. Again, the Bill of 1854 was prepared with the most consummate care by two of the principal authors of the first Reform Bill. That Bill proposed a large disfranchisement of the small boroughs and a redistribution of seats. It was defeated, and we were told that it was unsuccessful on account of the large measure of disfranchisement it proposed. On the next occasion parts were changed, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite sat here, and we had our places on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman in his Reform Bill proposed a very small measure of disfranchisement, and it was that small amount of disfranchisement that formed one of the principal objections to the Bill. Then in 1860 it became our turn, with the experience we possessed, to prepare another Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in criticizing that Bill, said that it cither went too far or not far enough, but did not tell us which. Now we come to the present Bill, which is framed upon a different model, and has avoided all the objections that have been taken to former Bills; and the right hon. Gentleman, whom I do not understand to move the rejection of the Bill because he did not make any Motion at all, with the kindness and consideration which we might expect from him, advises us to withdraw it on the plea that we are ignorant of all the principles upon which it is founded, and of all the facts upon which those principles should be based, and tells us that should we withdraw it we shall be acting a part consistent with our honour, and with what the House expects from Government. I do not, however, think it a course the Government is at all likely to take. When the right hon. Gentleman himself sat in this place he felt it to be his duty to propose and submit to the House a Reform Bill. He did not then think that the House was in ignorance either of principles or facts, and he entered into a long statement, the effect of which was that the subject was ripe for consideration, that it called for decision, and that, although the Conservative party were in power, they would be wanting in their duty if, with their knowledge and experience, they made no attempt to settle the question. If that was the case at that time, how far more must it be the case now? and if with all the experience and knowledge since accumulated the House and the country are not able to dispose of the question, then I think the whole subject should be relegated not, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes, to a future Session, but to the indefinite period when there will be no prospect of passing any such measure. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by what I had supposed to be so antiquated as to preclude the possibility of its being again heard in this House—an elaborate eulogy upon the advantages which are believed to be offered by the small boroughs. There sits beside him a noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who, in advocating the Bill of 1859, avowed with great frankness and great truth that if that Bill made a very small disfranchisement, that smallness arose not from the possibility of defending small boroughs, but from the fact that, looking at the question in a practical view, and knowing the difficulties which attended any large proposal of disfranchisement, it was not thought desirable to hazard the passage of that Bill by incurring those difficulties. I appeal from the right hon Gentleman to his noble Colleague, and to those who have written upon the history and the constitution of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has said there are two kinds of Reformers—those who would give all power to numerical majorities, and those whom he regards as true and constitutional Reformers, who would adapt the Act of 1832 to the England of 1859. But what was the Act of 1832? In the Act of 1832, the abolition of small boroughs was the principal feature. The principle of the Act of 1832 was the removal from small boroughs, subject either to nomination or corrupt influence, of the power of representation in order to confer it upon those great centres of wealth, intelligence, industry, and knowledge which constitute the real public opinion of this country. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the characteristic of the true Reformer is to adapt to the circumstances of our own day the Act of 1832, then I contend that this measure which the right hon. Gentleman supposes to be founded in ignorance of principle and ignorance of fact, is a measure of sound and constitutional Reform; and that the course which the right hon. Gentleman has recommended to the House is opposed to the principle of the Act of 1832. In dealing with the subject of the smaller boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the doctrine which may be called the doctrine of "young men." He admitted that when young men of ability seek their entrance in this House, the small boroughs are not the principal or the only means by which they can attain that result; but he insisted upon another argument, equally, I think, unfounded in fact, for he said that there were in this country a great number of interests and professions which it was most important should be fully represented in this House, but which, being neither mercantile nor agricultural, could not command representation either in the counties or in the great commercial towns of the country. Then he proceeded to give us instances, some of which I took down at the time as he spoke. He first referred to professional men, who, he said, were unable to enter this House unless elected for small boroughs—forgetting, I suppose, his own Attorney General and Solicitor General, the one a Member for a great county, and the other of a great city; the one in England, and the other in Ireland. He seemed to have forgotten that the present Lord Advocate represents the capital of Scotland, that Manchester is represented by the leader of the Northern Circuit, and that the present Solicitor General is the Member for a large seaport town in another part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman passed on to speak of those who, having spent their time in India or the colonies or in foreign parts, are acquainted with interests upon which, but for their knowledge, we might not possess much practical information, and he referred more particularly to my hon. Friend who now sits for Frome (Sir Henry Rawlinson), and who was first elected as a Member of this House by Reigate. It was the Act of 1832, the spirit of which we now seek to follow, that first constituted Frome, and confirmed the representation of Reigate. With respect to the Members for Bridport (Mr. K. Hodgson) and Huntingdon (Mr. T, Baring), every one knew that the Gentlemen who represented these places could not be kept from the House longer than they themselves desired. They are the merchant princes, to whom the right hon. Gentleman himself has said this House is always open. The right hon. Gentleman then spoke of the small boroughs as being the only mode by which those acquainted with our colonial affairs could find access to this House; but, as showing that this is not the case, I would refer to the most recent election—that for Cambridge—where a Gentleman well acquainted with one of our most important colonies was returned as a Member to this House (Mr. Gorst). He then referred to India and said, you are going to lay hands upon Honiton, Leominster, and Harwich, boroughs which have sent to Parliament men of eminence and well acquainted with Indian matters. If this Bill passes, we are certainly going to follow the course alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman did not remember that in the Bill which he himself introduced in 1859 all boroughs possessing populations of less than 6,000 inhabitants were to have the sacrilegious hands of the then Government laid upon them; and it does so happen—for I have just referred—that these three boroughs, Honiton, Leominster, and Harwich were included in the list. As far, then, as the illustrations of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned—and illustrations, as he says, are superior to arguments—they have not added much force to the argument which he desires to recommend to the House. But, after all, what is this argument? Are we to have it seriously contended that in order to perfect the representation of this House we are to retain a large number of these small boroughs, which everybody knows, if not more accessible to corrupt influences, are far more accessible to nomination than larger constituencies? The fundamental principle of the Reform Act was the abolition of those smaller constituencies, and the substitution in their places of those great communities, the centres of wealth, the depositories of skill, industry, and of commerce, the Members for which when they come to the House bring with them, not only their personal qualities, their learning, and their intelligence, but bring also those influences which rightly enough are inseparable from the representation of great constituencies. If we are to act in the spirit of the Bill of 1832, let us just for a moment consider what are the changes with which, in the altered circumstances of the country, it is necessary to deal. The right hon. Gentleman himself, when undertaking the advocacy of a measure of Reform, did not then deliver a eulogium upon the smaller boroughs. He stated then that the true and the constitutional Reformers were those who walked under the guidance of the Constitution, who adapted the Reform Act of 1832 to the circumstances of 1859. If that was true in 1859, how much more true is it at the present time? No doubt in 1832 the great communities which received representation were large and flourishing; but if it were right in 1832 that Gatton and Old Sarum should yield up the franchise in order that Manchester and Leeds might be enfranchised, it is equally just in our day that the boroughs sacrificed in this Bill should be so dealt with, in order that larger and more worthy communities should receive the privileges which this Bill proposes to confer upon them. But the right hon. Gentleman spoke of aggravating anomalies by the present Bill. Really I have some difficulty in ascertaining what the right hon. Gentleman understands by anomalies. To me it seems an anomaly that the great constituency of South Lancashire should be so meagrely represented as at present; yet he seems surprised that we propose to give six Members to South Lancashire, and says we are making the House of Commons like a Polish Diet. It appears to me to be an anomaly that the constituency of South Lancashire, with its 627,000 inhabitants, should have no greater number of representatives than the towns of Honiton and Lyme, which have exactly 6,500. The time was when that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself. In his Bill of 1859 he proposed to make the same division of South Lancashire which we propose to make in the present Bill. And does not the right hon. Gentleman think it an anomaly that the Southern division of Devon, with its 413,000 inhabitants, should have only the same number of representatives as the borough of Totnes, which has a population of 4,000? Those constituencies which in 1832 received representation were, indeed, great towns in comparison with those deprived of the franchise, but they were small in comparison with what we now see around us. In 1832 the only railroad opened in the country was that between Liverpool and Manchester, and no trans-Atlantic steamers were in our ports. In the interval which has elapsed villages have risen into great towns. It is acting in the spirit of the measure of 1832, and in order to carry out the policy indicated by that Act, that the present Bill has been proposed to you. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the system of grouping; but we have acted in accordance with the principle which I believe he has always asserted should be followed by those who would frame a Reform Bill. We have not first inquired how many seats could be obtained by disfranchisement, but how many were demanded for the purpose of enfranchisement. The right hon. Gentleman has commended the choice of additional towns which we have made, and the proposals which he has himself made to the House sustain our arrangement with respect to South Lancashire and Yorkshire. But the right hon. Gentleman has addressed us upon what he calls plurality of representation. I do not know from what source he has gained enlightenment as to the philosophy of English representation; but if he had consulted Mr. Hallam he would have found that, when speaking of large and small constituencies alike having two Members, Mr. Hallam says it is an arrangement easier to wonder at than explain. At the time of the Reform Bill 150,000 was the amount of population considered to entitle a county to a third Member, and 150,000 is the number adopted in the present measure. Then the right hon. Gentleman complains that the system of grouping is foreign and new, that it causes expense and contributes to bribery, and that it is likely to be mischievous in its results. Although the right hon. Gentleman complains much of the ignorance of those who have framed this Bill, he cannot have paid much attention to the history of grouping, if that be his opinion. The system is not foreign and new to England and Wales, much less is it new to the representation of Scotland. It has not been found productive of expense; the Returns made by the agents of candidates for membership show that groups of small boroughs are the cheapest. The sum re- turned by the agent of Sir George Lewis, when the representative of the Radnor Boroughs, was one of the smallest ever recorded in connection with the £10 franchise. Then, with regard to bribery, does the right hon. Gentleman expect grouping will increase bribery and bring about a system of caucus similar to that prevailing in connection with American elections? I believe there is only one instance of a Member having been unseated for bribery in all the elections that have taken place for the groups of boroughs in Scotland. But Scotland, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is not a case in point, inasmuch as by the grouping proposed in this Bill large intermediate towns of importance will be passed over. But if the right hon. Gentleman had been more familiar with Scotland he would have known that Greenock—a not unimportant place having its separate representation—lay in the middle of a district of grouped representation. The experience which we have had of grouping in Scotland shows that it is not a source of expense, but rather a source of economy—not a source of bribery, but rather of purity of election—and if these have been its effects in Scotland we have good grounds for supposing that it will produce the same effects in England. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we might have proposed to take a single Member from some comparatively small boroughs which have two; but would be not have objected to that system when regarded in the light of its effect upon his own followers? Those who examine the question will find that in order to provide without the system of grouping a sufficient number of Members for the constituencies which it is proposed to enfranchise, it is absolutely necessary to resort to actual disfranchisement, or so extensive a removal of second Members from smaller boroughs as would cause great dissatisfaction. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman merely to gain fifteen seats withdrew the Members from every borough containing less than 6,000 inhabitants; but in order to gain fifty seats we must have taken them from boroughs comprising much larger populations, if it had not been for the adoption of the system of grouping. I acknowledge that I am not one of those who would be particularly unwilling to see this one-sided disfranchisement carried further. With my views of Parliamentary Reform, it seems that a town with more inhabitants than 8,000 might very well be called upon to sacrifice its second Member. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how, with his views, he would give adequate representation to the larger constituencies by any other plan so easily as by that proposed? Why have we proposed this Bill? Have we done so without experience? The right hon. Gentleman speaks in bantering terms of the ignorance of those who have proposed this Bill. We may have been ignorant; but we were not ignorant, at any rate, of the fate which befell the Bill of 1854; we were not ignorant of the inadequacy of the Bill of 1859; we were not ignorant of the fate of the Bill of 1860. We were navigating waters, which had been already buoyed. We wished to avoid running this ship upon the former rocks; we desired to submit to the House a mea-sure which we might honestly recommend, as deserving the confidence and the support of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has to-night come forward, not merely to criticise the measure of the Government, but to expound, with generosity and frankness, the views he entertains upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. We know now what his views are, and what will be the policy aimed at in any Reform Bill which may hereafter be propounded by the right hon. Gentleman. The first aim will be to maintain all those smaller channels by which people now find their way to this House, whom larger constituencies would not send. Another aim will be to eliminate everything connected with commerce and industry from the county constituencies, and to make them purely and entirely rural. The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the Bill of 1859, spoke a great deal of the duty of which fell upon the Ministry, and even a Conservative Ministry, to bring forward such a measure as would settle the question of Reform; but I should like to know whether what the country expects as a settlement of the question is the maintenance of the small boroughs and the elimination from the counties of all traces of commercial into rest. The present measure has not been brought forward in ignorance, and it is not a measure which it is consistent with our honour to withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman further says we have neglected our duty in the matter of boundaries. What we have said is this—let the people be represented, not according to class notions, but according to the community to which they actually belong. In an able speech the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) said that we did not want class representation, but that we wanted the representation of communities. That was a sound doctrine, and upon that doctrine this Bill proceeds in the matter of boundaries, If a community is associated in municipal affairs, if it contributes to the same municipal burdens, primâ facie it ought to have the same representation; but places like Croydon or West Bromwich, which were comprised in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, being parts of counties, and paying the county rates, ought to remain in the counties for the purpose of representation. The right hon. Gentleman says there ought to be a marked distinction between a rural and an urban constituency; but I differ from the right hon. Gentleman both as to the principle and the possibility of applying it. The argument of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), when defending in 1859 the proposal of Lord Derby's Government for an uniform £10 franchise, was in favour of the practice we propose, for he said of dividing a borough from a county that that is just the thing you cannot do, and that towns extend themselves so gradually and imperceptibly that you cannot tell where the town ends and the country begins. I think the doctrine of the noble Lord is preferable to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. Upon principle, I object to this marked distinction between classes. I do not object to the policy which gives a generally rural constituency, or a generally commercial constituency, the choice of representatives; but I say it would be a great misfortune, it would cut very deep into the principles of our representation, it would tend to create an antagonism of interests and a war of classes, if all our Members, or even a large proportion of them, came to this House as distinct representatives of a special interest. A certain number of such Members may he beneficial; but equally beneficial and equally important in this House are those Members who, being connected with a combination of interests, as many of us are, wield the force both of rural influence and commercial influence, and independent influence, and are able to form their views upon wider principles, and to mediate and moderate between those who take more special and restricted views. But this argument about boundaries is a dilatory and obstructive argument. It is not long since we were told that the House would not deal with the question until it had the whole measure before it. If you had had both Bills before you, the answer would have been, "It is very true you have told us that there are to be the Members for counties and there are to be the Members for such and such boroughs, but you have not thought proper to inform us what is to be the limit between county and borough; it is impossible for us to know what your plan of representation is, because you have not told us where the line is to be drawn between £14 on the one hand and £7 on the other; and therefore it is impossible for us to deal with your measure." But the right hon. Gentleman himself, while raising all these objections to our system of grouping, has recommended a new system of grouping of his own. He says it would be wise to group the small unrepresented towns into new boroughs. What, then, become of his objections to the system of grouping that it is foreign, that it is expensive, that it leads to bribery, and to a system of caucus? He forgot to explain why the grouping of new towns would be domestic, while that of old towns was foreign—or why the evils of expense, of bribery, and of caucus, so strongly present in the one case, would be absent in the other. I say, then, that the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, that we have neglected our duty in this matter of boundaries, is completely disposed of. We should have acted in a spirit contrary to that of the Reform Act of 1832 if we had sought to draw the closest line of demarcation possible between all the borough constituencies and the county constituencies in the kingdom, and should have involved ourselves in endless difficulties, with no prospect of bringing the matter to a final settlement. Neither can I admit the charge that the kind of grouping proposed is either foreign or expensive. It appears to me that if you want to put an end to the idea of Reform, and that if you wish to withdraw it and to throw it over to the Greek Kalends, there is scarcely a suggestion you can make more likely to effect that object than the suggestion that you should set to work and not take in the existing and well-known boroughs, boroughs which are fixed by statute, but the small towns scattered throughout the country, and endeavour to organize them into new constituencies, and give them a new representation. I say that if you undertake that duty, you will be involved in another which will require all these inquiries which the right hon. Gen- tleman has suggested before a Reform Bill can be brought in. As I before observed, I sincerely sympathize with the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that we want representation by communities, and not by classes; and I quite agree that just and reasonable consideration ought to be given to the classes of which the future constituencies are to be composed; but I think that we are carrying that investigation too far when we speak of them as necessarily antagonistic interests. I am old enough to remember a time when class interests were much more conflicting than they are now; but the wise legislation of the House for the last twenty-five years has been such as greatly to diminish the violence of those conflicts, and almost to extirpate the causes of animosity themselves. I remember when it was otherwise—when the Duke of Wellington went down into Lancashire to open the first railway, and was encountered by the working classes with a manifestation of feeling growing entirely out of sentiments that have long passed away. I remember also the struggles which took place between different sections of the wealthier classes in this country, the various interests being marshalled one against the other with an amount of jealousy and animosity that happily exist no longer. In the year 1830 Mr. Huskisson, when making a speech in this House, pointed out how much class feeling guided the legislation of that day, and how much the burdens of the country were levied in conformity with class views and class interests. But for the last twenty-five years, by the wisdom of this House, every measure of legislation has been directed with a view not to the benefit of any particular class, but to the benefit of the whole community; and the result has been a change of public feeling, and a good understanding between every class of the community which it is delightful to witness, and to which in this argument we ought to bear constant testimony. I, therefore, trust we shall be less given to dwelling on class interests and class distinctions in this debate, and that this measure which is notdrawn with a view to the interests of any particular class, will be found to be equally beneficial to all. I have concluded the remarks which I now propose to make. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to give practical effect by any Motion to the suggestions which he has made. The right hon. Gentleman himself, seven years ago, explained to the House the reason why it was his duty to give effect to the promises which have been held out on the subject of Reform. It was very kind and very considerate, and no doubt exceedingly well intended on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, to recommend us to withdraw the present measure. But if we were to fail in prosecuting our duty, I think we should hear from him comments upon the course which we had pursued. My earnest hope is that this question may now be settled. I think it was our bounden duty, in this the first Session of a new Parliament, to submit the question to the best of our judgment and ability to the House. And I earnestly trust that by the moderation of all parties, and by that on which the right hon. Gentleman has justly as well as confidently relied—the good sense and right judgment of this House—the present Parliament may be able, in the present Session, to bring to a just and satisfactory conclusion the long agitated question of a Reform in the representation of the people.

MR. WALSH

said, he trusted the House would extend its indulgence and kindness to him while he addressed to them a few remarks. This was not the first time that the small boroughs had been attacked; they had survived former assaults, and he trusted they might survive the present. These boroughs had never wanted able and eloquent defenders, and among the most eloquent and most able was the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. In 1859 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said— I must frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious to the efficiency of the House of Commons. You must not consider in this matter the question only of the electors. You must consider quite as much who are likely to be the elected.…If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return Members of Parliament.…you will not find it possible to introduce adequately into this House the race of men by whom the government of the country is to be carried on."—[3 Hansard, cliii 1054.] In the course of a speech made last summer the right hon. Gentleman, in addressing, he believed, the electors of Chester, held similar language, and said if this country wished to be served well it must return young men to Parliament; and, with all deference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had said, except in the case of some few favoured individuals, he did not see how this result was to be brought about unless through the medium of small boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer it might be said, in words which were applied to another great statesman, that all parties were proud of him; and though he had quitted one side of the House and gone to sit at the other, he congratulated his new supporters on possessing such a distinguished advocate. But were they quite sure that that imagination, which in early youth had been dazzled by the splendour of Canning, and now in its maturer years was caught by the glitter of Birmingham, had finally settled? Were they quite sure it would not make another gyration? With a verbal alteration, he would address to them advice similar to that which fell from the injured father of Dosdemona— Look to her, Moor; have a quick eye to see; She hath deceived her father, and may thee. To exhibit the vicissitudes of party warfare and to show how difficult it was for even our most distinguished statesmen to keep their hold upon the larger constituencies, he need only remind the House that the late Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and many others had been unable to keep their hold on the large constituencies, and would have been kept out of Parliament but for the smaller boroughs, and that it was owing to the little borough of Tiverton that the singular wisdom and genial authority of Lord Palmerston were preserved to that House so long. Since the Reform debates had commenced the Opposition had been deluged with good advice by Gentlemen sitting opposite, who suddenly manifested the most affectionate interest in their well-being as a party. Their advice, however, partook largely of the character with which in childhood they had all been familiar. Having in vain besought the Conservative party to shut its eyes and open its mouth and swallow the good things Lord Russell would send it, they were now told how much better they would be from taking the dose, they were promised a nice game of Downing Street afterwards, and that the Reform stick should be hid away in the cupboard. But he contended that any settlement to which the House was asked to agree ought to be fair and to have some prospect of finality about it. This Bill affected the seats of seventy-nine Members, forty-eight of whom were Conservatives, and thirty-one Liberals; and nothing had surprised him more than the number of 8,000 which had been fixed on as the electoral limit. In these days of decimal figures 10,000 would surely have been the natural limit. But on looking through the Returns with the assistance of Dod, a very easy explanation presented itself of the grounds for selecting 8,000 in preference to 10,000. He found that the seats with a population of between 8,000 and 10,000 which would have been affected by choosing the higher number were seventeen, and of these sixteen were held by Liberals and only one by a Conservative Member. The moderation, therefore, of the Government in fixing the limit at 8,000 no longer surprised him. He had only one more observation to address to Members who, like himself, represented one of the doomed boroughs. It was quite evident now that it was a question between their existence or that of the Government, and not merely of those boroughs in the present schedule—because once the principle established that mere numbers were to overrule the property and intelligence of the country, boroughs of 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000 inhabitants might number their existence by moments. Let them not be killed in detail. Very often offence was the best defence; let them join, therefore, in defeating a measure which, he believed, would be subversive of the best interests of the country, and in furnishing the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill) with a practical illustration of the way in which a minority could make its wishes respected and its interests cared for, even in the face of a powerful majority.

MR. ARKWRIGHT

I can fully understand the very great difficulties which a Government must encounter in endeavouring to deal with such an important and intricate subject as that of the Re-distribution of Seats. I can well believe that an Administration, however conscientious, must inevitably lay itself open to the charge—or at any rate to the suspicion—of inconsistency and unfairness, considering the numerous and conflicting interests which this Bill touches; and considering too how much, as in this case, is left to the arbitrary discretion of its promoters. I should, therefore, be unwilling to attach too much importance to the curious chain of concidences which in the Bill now before the House does, undoubtedly, expose it to the accusation of being formed as a party measure. I will not unduly insist on the curious fact that the figure of 8,000, ar- bitrarily fixed upon as being the minimum population which is to return two Members, cuts off a very large proportion of Members who sit on this side the House, while the obvious and intelligible limit of 10,000 would, I believe, deal with exactly the same number of Liberal and Conservative seats. I will not ask why almost all the seats thus placed at the disposal of the Government go to places which will support this Government. I will not ask why, after the returns of population- and electors which have been made with such care, we should go back five years, to the last census for the purposes of this Bill, and make no use of the knowledge we have of the numbers or character of our electors. I will not ask what precedent there is for the obnoxious proposal of grouping boroughs already represented, and thereby increasing all their alleged defects and taking away their obvious benefits. Going more into detail, I will not ask why Bewdley, with its decaying population already under 7,000 is left untouched, and with its 391 Liberal electors not grouped with Droitwich with its 407 Conservative electors; these two towns being ten miles apart and in the same county, while Woodstock is brought twenty miles from its own county to be amalgamated with Wallingford. I will not ask why Brecon and Radnor, with their population under 8,000 and their Liberal representatives remain unaltered. The Government has reserved to itself the right of dealing arbitrarily with all these questions, and let us not blame them too much that their justice is tempered with the charity that begins at home. But, when a strict and definite rule is laid down, and when, curiously enough, the only exceptions made to it are made to the disadvantage of Conservative constituencies, then, I say, it is time for every honest man, and for every Member who has an especial interest in the seats injuriously affected, to come forward and demand an explanation of the circumstances. The Government Bill lays down the rule that every constituency which had in 1861 a population of more than 8,000 is still to retain its right to return two Members to Parliament. By thi3 rule the towns of Chicester, Guildford, Lewes, Mal-ton, Poole, Stamford, Tavistock, Wycombe, and Windsor, all of which have a population between the mystical number 8,000 and 10,000, keep their privilege; well and good. Now, there are ten groups of boroughs which have more than 9,000 inhabitants. It is obvious, therefore, that by this rule all the groups should at least retain the above-mentioned privilege; but, an exception is made, and these ten groups, not one of which would return two Liberal Members, and certainly five of which would return two Conservative Members, are not to have two representatives unless their population amounts to 15,000. Now I ask how, in the name of consistency and fairness, can this exception be supported? I will take the case of the group of boroughs in which I am personally interested, Ludlow and Lominster, and ask why are we not to have two representatives unless we have a population of 15,000? Is it because our electors are few? Our united electors number 765, while not one of the ten privileged towns I have named has more than 719. Is it because we are accused of corruption and undue local influence? Such a suggestion has never even been whispered, and while the names of Windsor and Lewes, of Tavistock and Malton, are so notorious, we can safely say that that is not the reason. Is it because we are decaying places? No: both constituencies are flourishing and increasing steadily in proportion, while the comparatively recent railways are just beginning to develop new sources of wealth and influence. Is it because we have no vested rights. At this moment Ludlow and Leominster return four Members to Parliament, and in the latter place, at least, we point back with pride to a long line of distinguished representatives. No ! the only-method on which this spoliation of small boroughs has been conducted is— The good old rule, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can, We small boroughs hold in our hands a banner. It is not so imposing and brilliant as that which still floats from the Treasury Bench. Our warriors are few and comparatively unskilled in the combat, but we have the advantage of having justice on our side, and we wage the battle of right against might. This Bill may be passed through the House by a small majority, and we know the tender mercies that are extended to the weak in Committee; but I shall have this satisfaction, that the first words I have uttered in this House—words which if this Bill become law may be my last—have been against as illogical and tyrannical an injustice as has ever been contemplated by any Government.

MR. JOHN HARDY

said, it was hard that the borough of Dartmouth, which he represented, and which had been tampered with by the Reform Bill of 1832, should again be singled out for attack. If the right hon. Gentleman who framed the Bill had grouped Dartmouth with other towns on the coast having similar interests, such as Brixham, and Paignton, and Teign-mouth, he might not have complained; but what had Dartmouth to do with such way-side boroughs as Ashburton and Totnes, the last of which was of no good repute, and the other was so completely out of the way—for nobody went there—that if a man found himself thereby chance he would have to ask where he was. Dartmouth, too, was one of those boroughs which had won its charter and done the State some service long before many of the larger boroughs had been heard of; and, although a man ought to submit to see a small borough disfranchised with equanimity, if the country were likely to be benefited by the sacrifice, it was rather hard to have one's seat handed over to a Democrat, and to be called upon to make way for the Scotch Radicals. For his own part, he was not in favour of making any addition to the number of Members already in the House, The House could not well contain a greater number, and the great majority of the present Members were unable to express their opinions on any important debate. But, beyond that, the Bill was full of anomalies, which he would illustrate by the single instance that one Member was to be taken away from the cathedral town of Lichfield, while Tam-worth, with 200 or 300 electors less, was left untouched. When the Franchise Bill was brought forward there was the usual cry that it was an honest Bill. But he called nothing honest that did not tell the truth. He would not detain the House longer, as he would have opportunities of attacking its details in Committee, but he could not avoid taking this opportunity of expressing his opposition to the Bill,

MR. KER

expressed his dissatisfaction with the mode in which it was proposed in the Irish Reform Bill to deal with Downpatrick, the borough which he represented.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member was not in order in discussing the Reform Bill for Ireland, as that measure was not before the House.

MR. KER

, under those circumstances, would reserve his observations till the Irish Bill came on.

MR. BUTTON

said, he was not disposed to object to the second reading of the Bill, because he was of opinion that a Committee composed of half-a-dozen Members from each side of the House might in a very short time make this Bill into a very useful measure. His own opinion was that instead of grouping boroughs already enfranchised, it would have been a wiser course to have partially disfranchised all boroughs of under 15,000 population, and thus acquired sixty seats, which could have been distributed among the populous places which were at present unrepresented. He thought that the system of grouping boroughs adopted by the Government would be very unsatisfactory to the residents in these boroughs, and most inconvenient to the hon. Gentlemen who represented them. In some cases of proposed grouping it was extremely difficult to see any reason for the grouping, geographically or otherwise. In reference to his own case, he could not conceive why Cirencester, Tewkesbury, and Evesham should be joined. The people of those towns knew nothing of each other, and any person going the round of the three towns would have to travel over several branch lines, to go a distance of forty miles, and to change carriages five times. In reference to two boroughs in his own county, Lymington and Andover, he thought that it would have been far better, instead of being grouped, that they should have one Member each, and that unrepresented towns should be thrown into groups. In reference to the distribution of seats he found that South Hants was not to have a third Member, though from the large population and from the rapid increase of the constituency in consequence of the large towns, such as Portsmouth and Southampton, that division of the county had upwards of 100,000 inhabitants, more than the number considered to entitle other counties to the extra Member. He was glad that the Bill was to be allowed to go into Committee, and he had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side in a spirit of fairness, and that on the other hand the proposals of the Government would receive due consideration; for without mutual concession no measure of this kind could be carried, and he was anxious to see the much-vexed question of Parliamentary Reform settled during the present Session.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he should be glad to know the position in which the House stood with regard to the Motion of which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) had given notice. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice that in the event of this Bill being read a second time, he would move— That it be committed to the same Committee with the Representation of the People Bill, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do make both the said Bills into one. The course to be followed with regard to this Bill might be materially affected by the decision which the House might arrive at on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The right hon. Gentleman was not then in his place, but it would be convenient that the House should know in what position they would stand in the event of this Bill being read a second time without a division. There was no disposition, as far as he knew, on that side of the House to object to the second reading; but they would be glad to know whether the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman could be made when the Committee on this Bill was fixed; whether the Government were prepared to assent to that Motion; and if it should be agreed to, in what position the House would be as regarded any Amendments on the question, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." He was not aware that it was intended to move any Amendment on the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, but it was desirable there should be a clear understanding as to the position in which the House stood. There was no wish on the part of the Opposition to gain time or take any unfair advantage of the Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought the question of the hon. Baronet was a perfectly fair one. When introducing the Bill he said that as regarded the question of procedure he would endeavour to gather the feeling of the House, and he naturally looked to the termination of the discussion on the second reading as the period at which the Government would have received a sufficient indication of that feeling. They had supposed from the course matters had taken previously, that there would have been a longer discussion on the second reading; but the information they now had led them to believe that it would, on the whole, meet the views of the majority of the House if the two Bills should be combined together. As a matter of fact, he believed that was the only point which had remained in any doubt; and on the part of the Government he had to say that he was prepared to accede to the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. He supposed that Motion would be made on going into Committee, which, with the permission of the House, he would fix for that day fortnight.

MR. SPEAKER

, in reference to one of the questions asked by the hon. Baronet, said, that an Instruction to the Committee was not in the nature of an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee; and, therefore, Amendments on that Motion had not been interfered with by the Instruction.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 28th May.