Mr. Bentinck remarked that, although the pretence for the Bill was that its object was to extend the county franchise, its practical effect would be to inundate the rural districts with an urban constituency, and import into those districts the corrupt practices of certain boroughs.

Lord Palmerston said there were two things he did not mean to do-one was, to oppose the motion; the other, to argue the subject of the Bill. The first would be discourteous to the mover, and expose him (Lord Palmerston) to the imputation of a change of opinion upon the subject; and he could not enter into a discussion of the reasons why the Government had not proposed to introduce a Reform Bill this session. He could not assent to the amendment, because it would be anticipating a discussion that would properly belong to the Committee on the Bill. There was a time for waiting, it had been said, as well as a time for action. The present session, he thought, was a time for waiting upon this question, and not for action. Believing that measures of reform were of vast importance, and that they ought to originate with a responsible Government and not with private individuals, he regretted that some of his friends had thought it their duty to anticipate the action of the Ministers of the Crown, and they must take upon themselves all the responsibility of the future progress of their measures, allowing the Government to deal with them as they might think it their duty, from time to time, to do.

Mr. Disraeli said that, under the circumstances, he was not at

all prepared to oppose the introduction of the Bill. He was, however, more strongly of opinion every day that, if there ought to be a measure for the reconstruction of Parliament, it should be large and comprehensive. If such a measure could not be passed, the inference was that there was no necessity for it; and, in a measure of such a character, all the responsibility of Ministers was required. He thought the proposed measure would have an injurious effect upon the country, and that the objections urged by Mr. Newdegate were well worthy the attention of the House.

Mr. Griffith having withdrawn his amendment, the motion was agreed to without a division.

The second reading of the Bill being moved on the 13th of March, a general debate took place, after a short introductory speech by Mr. L. King.

Mr. A. Smith moved the previous question, explaining his reasons for taking this course, instead of moving to defer the second reading for six months. The measure, he remarked, could not be considered by itself, apart from its consequences, one of which must be the division of the country, with reference to the county representation, into electoral districts. He pointed out other effects which it would have upon the balance of interests and upon the urban constituency, to the injury, he believed, of Liberal principles. He deprecated the discussion of these reform measures, which, he said, distracted the attention of the House, and diverted it from the regular business of the session.

This motion was seconded by Mr. Du Cane, who thought the

measure more inopportune and uncalled-for than at any former period, and noticed the absence of agitation and indignation meetings on the subject of reform, notwithstanding the provocative contained in the remark of Lord J. Russell upon the apathy of the country.

Lord Henley drew attention to some effects which the Bill would produce. It would, he said, increase the already enormous and ruinous expense of county elections, which practically limited the choice of the counties while it saddled families with debt and encumbrances; and it would increase the power of the great freeholders and destroy the influence of the smaller. He should, however, vote for the Bill.

Mr. Adderley argued that the question of reform must be treated as a whole or not at all; that the dealing with it in this manner, by isolated measures, was playing with this great question and with the interests of the country. The Bill contained no principle unconnected with the entire question. He admitted that the present county franchise was too high, but this question, which would be a very fair element in a general Reform Bill, would not justify him in voting for this

measure.

Lord Enfield observed that both sides of the House were pledged to some extent to a reduction of the county franchise; the limit was a question open to consideration. He gave his cordial and hearty assent to the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Hunt opposed the Bill, which, he said, would introduce a town element into counties. The question was too important

to be dealt with in a fragmentary manner, and by the irresponsible hands of a private member. He objected to the Bill, moreover, on the ground of its intrinsic demerits.

Mr. Coningham considered that this treatment of the great question of reform was trifling with it. The bringing forward petty measures of details was bringing the great Liberal party into contempt. He should give no vote upon the question before the House.

Mr. Bristow supported, and Sir L. Palk, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. A. Egerton opposed the Bill.

Sir G. Lewis observed that the House had, on the first night of the session, confirmed by a large majority the decision of the Government, that it was not advisable that they should introduce this session an extensive measure for lowering the franchise in counties and boroughs. Although he felt that there were many advantages in proceeding gradually, still he thought experience would prove that the question of reform could be satisfactorily dealt with only by a more comprehensive measure than that submitted to the House. The "previous question would not dispose of the Bill. His vote would be given for its second reading; at the same time he was of opinion that the present was not a favourable opportunity for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.

Mr. B. Osborne supported the motion in a humorous speech. He said he was puzzled by Sir G. Lewis's speech, who admired Mr. King's Bill as much as ever, but thought it had not been in

troduced at a favourable moment; giving his vote for the Bill, but damning it with faint praise. He (Mr. Osborne) should vote for the Bill, though he believed there was no better time for a moderate and well-considered measure of comprehensive reform, by a compromise which the country would accept and

approve.

Lord J. Russell, after explaining the motives which had led him to advocate Parliamentary Reform, said he was disposed to concur with Mr. Disraeli, that any further amendment of the Constitution would be better done by some comprehensive measure; and he was further of opinion that no measure was likely to succeed which was not founded upon a due regard to the general interests of all classes. But it seemed to him that it was not necessary for the House to wait for a comprehensive measure. He concurred in the proposition contained in the preamble of this Bill, that it is expedient to extend the franchise to certain of Her Majesty's subjects who had not hitherto enjoyed it. This did not bind the House to any particular amount to which the franchise should be lowered, and he considered it to be his duty to give his vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Disraeli said Lord John Russell, after admitting the general principle that this great question could be properly dealt with only by a complete and comprehensive measure, had made an exception in favour of the county franchise, but had not stated on what ground he justified the exception. He (Mr. Disraeli) ob

jected to deal with the question of extending the suffrage in counties otherwise than by a complete and comprehensive measure, in connection with the borough fran chise, and with all that affected the representation of the people in Parliament. He denied that this Bill was in any degree in harmony with the Bill of the late Administration, which provided for local government and for that protection to the land which was necessary to public liberty.

Upon a division, the previous question was negatived by 248 to 229, consequently the motion for the second reading could not be put, and the Bill miscarried.

A similar result attended a motion made by Mr. Baines, one of the members for Leeds, in support of a Bill introduced by him to extend the borough franchise in England. The debate took place on the 10th of April. Anticipating the objections which might be urged against his proposition, Mr. Baines urged the extreme difficulty of carrying through a great and comprehensive measure of reform, and adduced examples showing that it was practicable and useful to deal in detail with separate branches of the law, and even with distinct matters of Parliamentary reform. He met other objections founded upon the assumption that this was a question which should be left in the hands of the Government, and upon the alleged apathy of the country upon the subject, insisting that a time of calm was especially favourable for its consideration. He contended that the improvement of the population in industry, comfort, intelligence, and virtue had outstripped their rate of numerical increase,

and that the 61. borough occupier of 1861 was as capable of properly exercising the franchise as the 10. occupier of 1831. He discussed a variety of details relating to the number which his measure would add to the borough constituency, and the proportion which would consist of the work ing classes, with the view of banishing any alarm that might be felt at the admission of those classes to the franchise; and, reverting to the subject of the advancement of the people during the last thirty years in all the elements of social and material improvement, he stated facts which demonstrated the extraordinary impulse given to education among the working classes, and their appetite for knowledge and for literature of a purer quality. He dwelt upon the enormous increase in the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, and of the publications of the Religious Tract Society, as a fact of peculiar significance bearing upon this question. To the evidence of capacity for political trust in the working classes, derived from their education and reading habits, he added proofs of their providence and temperance, and of the moral result in the diminution of crime; and he maintained that they would be independent in the discharge of the trust.

The motion was seconded by Mr. W. Digby Seymour, who argued that the Bill was simply a return to the first principles of the Constitution, and a necessary supplement to the Reform Act.

Mr. Cave moved the previous question. He did not propose, he said, to negative the principle of the Bill, because the admission

of the working classes to the franchise had not been objected to by his side of the House; but he was opposed to the Bill for these among other reasons-that such a measure should be brought forward with the authority and on the responsibility of an united Cabinet, and that it was introduced at a most inopportune time. Whatever might be the abstract merits of this measure, it was not, in his opinion, presented in a form which ought to command the concurrence of the House.

Mr. A. Smith seconded this amendment.

Mr. Leatham, after a few strictures upon the conduct of the Government in relation to the question of reform, accused the Conservative party of inconsistencies in their arguments on the subject of the borough franchise, citing examples from the speeches of Mr. Disraeli, the organ of the party, and of other members. Their objection to the admission of the working classes was, he said, that they would swamp the constituency; he contended, however, that the same diversity of political opinion existed among the working classes as in others; but, granting an identity of feeling, he ridiculed the idea of their overpowering the other classes of the constituency.

Sir J. Ramsden observed that the motion and the amendment raised two distinct questionsfirst, as to the abstract merits of the measure; and secondly, whether it was expedient at the present time, after the determination of the Government not to attempt the question of reform this session, a determination which had been generally

approved. The amendment pronounced no condemnation of a 61. franchise, and the question was whether the Government having determined, with the approbation of the House, not to introduce a measure of reform this session, any private member might undertake the task. He thought the conclusion at which Mr. Cave had arrived, recommended itself by considerations of consistency and common sense, and that to adopt the motion for the second reading of the Bill would be practically to affirm that legislation on this subject was possible and desirable, and that the Government were wrong in not undertaking it. He should, therefore, vote for the previous question.

Mr. Lawson supported, and Mr. Black opposed, the Bill.

Mr. Stansfield said the opportuneness of the measure depended upon the position of the question of reform before Parliament. He reviewed the subject in its various phases, and the manner in which the leading members on either side of the House were affected by it, and concluded that the promoters of the present Bill were justified in asking the House to sanction it.

On a division, the previous question being carried in the negative, the Bill fell to the ground.

Another abortive attempt to alter the electoral system, was the repetition of Mr. H. Berkeley's annual motion on the ballot. The motion for leave to bring in a Bill for this purpose was made on the 23rd April. The debate was short, and the subject too much exhausted to admit of novelty in the arguments. Mr. Berkeley, in introducing his mo

tion, cited the opinions of several gentlemen of experience in electoral proceedings at home or in Australia, which were more or less in favour of vote by ballot as a protection against intimidation and a cure for bribery, and he mentioned instances of oppression on the part of landlords which the ballot might have prevented. He expressed little confidence in the success of his motion, being conscious that the feeling of the House was opposed to him.

The motion was seconded by Sir Charles Douglas, and disposed of speedily by a division, which gave

The only Bill, introduced, in this session, by the Government which proposed to alter the representative system was one brought in by Sir George Lewis, the Home Secretary, for the purpose of assigning the seats which had been vacated by the disfranchisement in former years of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban's to other places. The intentions of the Government, which were afterwards modified by the decision of the House of Commons, were explained by Sir G. Lewis, in his motion for leave to introduce the measure. The right honourable gentleman stated that the two boroughs had been disfranchised by the Acts of 1844 and 1852, and the Government had deemed it advisable that the four seats should no longer remain vacant. They proposed, therefore, to assign two of the seats to the two largest counties-namely,