in, the right hon. gentleman said that the ground upon which he took his stand was, that there were large and important communities, many of them growing communities, whilst others were stationary, but both having this feature in common, that they were not now represented in the House of Commons in proportion to their just demands. In searching for means to make their representation more adequate, it was clear that these were to be equitably obtained only by resorting to a restraint upon the superabundant representation of small boroughs which still prevailed in this country. This being the case, the object of the Government was to consider in what way they could most justly apply this principle to the small boroughs; and they had come to the conclusion that it would be most agreeable to the equity of the case that no borough should be absolutely extinguished, but that, in lieu thereof, recourse should be had to the system which answered so well in Scotland, that of grouping such boroughs. Thirty years' experience of the Reform Act went to show that if any one class of boroughs was entitled to be selected for the praise of comparative purity, it was the grouped boroughs. Consequently, this would be a measure of Reform in the sense of its tending to purify elections from what was beyond all doubt a grievous national evil. The number of seats, which it was proposed to obtain for redistribution by the Bill was 49. And this would be done by a double operation. He proposed, first, to withdraw one member from every borough having a population under 8,000, by which thirty seats would be placed at the disposal of Parliament, and these boroughs be still left in possession of one member each. The second part of the proposal was to group as many of these boroughs as could be joined together with geographical convenience. The population of the groups would differ, and with respect to that difference he proposed to assign one or two representatives, as the case might be. Where the population of a group was less than 15,000, there would be one member; and where it was above 15,000, there would be two members for the group. The lowest in population of the groups would be a little under 10,000, and the highest of them 20,000 or 21,000. The right hon. gentleman then read a list of the proposed groups as follows:

1. Woodstock, Wallingford, and Abingdon-two members. 2. Liskeard, Bodmin, and Launceston-two members.

3. Totnes, Dartmouth, and Ashburton-one member.

4. Bridport, Honiton, and Lyme-one member.

5. Dorchester and Wareham-one member.

6. Maldon and Harwich-one member.

7. Tewkesbury, Cirencester, and Evesham-two members. 8. Andover and Leamington-one member.

9. Ludlow and Leominster-one member.

10. Eye and Thetford-one member.

11. Horsham, Petersfield, Midhurst, and Arundel-two members.

12. Chippenham, Malmesbury, and Calne-two members. 13. Westbury and Wells-one member.

14. Devizes and Marlborough-one member.

15. Ripon, Knaresborough, and Thirsk-two members. 16. Richmond and Northallerton-one member.

Besides these there were eight towns with a population under 8,000, which, owing to local circumstances and geographical convenience, could not be brought within the limits of any group. There were Bridgenorth, Buckingham, Cockermouth, Lichfield, Stamford, Stafford, Wenlock, and Newport. A considerable portion of the seats liberated by disfranchisement had in all former cases been assigned to divisions of counties, and there had been a just tendency to increase the number of seats so assigned. Here, besides counties, there were the claims of towns to be considered, and these under two heads-those of the large communities which had either reached such a point as to make it expedient to divide them, or which had a claim for some addition to the actual number of their representatives, and those new and growing towns whose progress was so rapid as to be continually assuming an increased magnitude. He proposed to give twenty-six seats to counties in England; first, by dividing the southern division of Lancashire, and giving to each division three members. Then, taking every county or division of a county, with one exception only, not now having a population above 150,000, and not having three members already, he proposed to give each of them an additional member, so as to raise the number of their representatives to three. This arrangement would absorb twenty-three seats. He excepted Middlesex from the scheme, because, upon the whole, that county ought to be regarded as having an affinity to the metropolis rather than to the rest of the country. Further, he proposed to give a third member to four boroughs having a population exceeding 200,000 each. These were Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds; and a second member to Salford, which had a population of 100,000. He would next divide the borough of the Tower Hamlets into two sections, each to return two members; and unite Chelsea and Kensington into one borough, with two members. He proposed, likewise, to give one member to each of all unrepresented municipal boroughs having a population exceeding 18,000 These were Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesborough, and Dewsbury. By these arrangements forty-one seats out of the forty-nine were disposed of. The forty-second seat he proposed to confer upon the University of London. Forty-two seats being thus distributed, he turned now to consider the important and irrefutable claims of Scotland. The Government had to consider whether the demand of Scotland should be met by a transfer of seats from England, or an addition to the number of members of this House; and, believing that the House would be disinclined to increase its numbers, they had resolved that the remaining seven seats should be transferred to Scotland. An addi

tional member would, therefore, be given to each of three countiesAyr, Lanark, and Aberdeen-a third member to the city of Glasgow, a third to the city of Edinburgh, a second to Dundee, and one member to the Scottish Universities. So far as the Welsh constituencies were concerned, he did not propose to interfere with the existing arrangements, the boroughs there being grouped, and the system working satisfactorily. With regard to the question of the boundaries of boroughs, the Bill proposed that the parliamentary boundary should be coequal with the municipal, and that the Enclosure Commissioners should consider the proper boundaries for the newly-enfranchised towns, and the limits which should divide the two sections of the Tower Hamlets. As to the course of proceeding on these Bills, when the two measures relating to Scotland and Ireland had been introduced there would be four Bills upon the table affecting the representation of the people. Thus the whole scheme of the Government would be before the House. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn had suggested that there should be some guarantee that the two questions of an extension of the franchise and the redistribution of seats should be dealt with by the same Parliament. This he was willing to concede; but he was not prepared to agree to the loss of a whole year by postponing the subject. His intention, therefore, was to persevere with the proposals he had made; and the Government would not advise a prorogation of Parliament until the whole subject— meaning by that the questions of the franchise and redistributionhad been disposed of.

Mr. Disraeli expressed his astonishment that Mr. Gladstone had not indicated the mode in which he intended to ask the opinion of the House on this important measure, and the time at which he would deem it convenient to do so. He put it to the Government not to shrink from the performance of that which was one of their principal duties, but inform the House on what day and in what manner they would take the opinion of the House on the subject.

Mr. Bouverie said the redistribution of seats was the pinch of the problem. The difficulty was, how to extend the power of mere numbers, so as not to affect the due influence of property, or increase the opportunities for the exercise of corruption, and to improve generally the representation of the people; and this could not be done in a perfunctory way. For his part he was desirous of having as large a sweep of the small boroughs as was consistent with securing the success of the measure; and as regarded the substance of the scheme of the Government, he thought it would be acceptable to the country and to the bulk of the House.

General Peel believed there were many persons who ought to have the franchise who did not now possess it, and he was as anxious as any one to see the question settled; but to this Bill he should offer his strenuous opposition at every opportunity that presented itself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the Government were justly chargeable with abdicating their duty, and stated that he should propose that the Bill for the redistribution of seats be read a second time on that day week.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

THE SCOTCH BILL.-The Lord-Advocate then asked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the representation in Scotland, which was based on the same principle as the English Franchise Bill, viz., a qualification of 77. in boroughs and 147. in counties. It would increase the borough constituencies by 26,000 electors, of whom 17,100 would be of the working classes. The Bill would also reduce the property franchise in counties from 107. to 57., with the condition, however, of personal residence. Amongst the new seats an additional seat would be given to Edinburgh, and a member would be given to the Scotch Universities.

A smart discussion ensued, Sir J. Fergusson contending that \ the Bill would in many instances transfer the voting power from the rural to the urban population; Sir S. Maxwell urging that a larger representation ought to be conferred upon the northern Universities; Mr. M'Laren complaining that the Bill did not create a forty-shilling freehold franchise; Mr. H. Baillie that it did not provide for a redistribution of seats; and many other gentlemen advocating the claims of their respective constituencies to special consideration and favour.

THE IRISH BILL.-Mr. Fortescue then asked leave to bring in this Bill. He said that it was not of an extensive nature, as the question had been dealt with in 1850 by Sir W. Somerville. The borough constituencies had greatly diminished in numbers since that date. He proposed to reduce the rating occupation franchise from 81. to 67., the effect of which would be to add about 5,500 persons to the borough register. The Bill also contained a clause creating a lodger franchise, also a clause creating a savings bank franchise, on the model of that in the English Bill. There were only three cases so peculiar as to justify a transfer of seats, and an additional member would be given to Dublin city and Cork county; and the Queen's University would be placed on the same footing as the London University, and have a right to return one member to the House. To provide these three seats, six smaller boroughs would be thus grouped: Bandon with Kinsale, Portarlington with Athlone, and Dungannon with Enniskillen. There were also seven boroughs, with a population less than 8,000 each, which would be united to other places, and so raise a number of grouped boroughs with large populations, and more respectable and numerous constituencies.

Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Whiteside, General Dunne, Lord C. Hamilton, and other members opposed, and Sir C. O'Loghlen, The O'Connor Don, Mr. Cogan, Sir H. M. Barron, and other members supported the Bill.

Leave was given to introduce both Bills.

The second reading of the Redistribution of Seats Bill was

moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 14th of May, but meanwhile two important notices were put upon the order book of the House of Commons; one of them, given by Mr. Bouverie, was to this effect, that the Representation of the People Bill and the Redistribution of Seats Bill be referred to the same committee; and that it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to consolidate the said Bills into one Bill. The other was given by Capt. Hayter, and was as follows: "As an amendment to Mr. Bouverie's instruction on going into committee on Representation of the People Bill, to move, that this House, although desirous that the subjects of the franchise and of the redistribution of seats should be considered together, is of opinion that the system of grouping proposed in the present Bill for the redistribution of seats is neither convenient nor equitable, and that the scheme of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory measure."

The second reading of the Redistribution Bill was not formally opposed, but Mr. Disraeli availed himself of the opportunity to enter into a statement of his views upon the subject. He said it was important for the House to reflect on the important consequences which were involved in the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the small boroughs. He presumed that the real object of the various Reform Bills which had been produced since the Act of 1832 was to render the House of Commons a more competent representation of the country and its various attributesthe landed, manufacturing, and commercial interests, and the interests of our colonial and Indian empire. For this purpose the small boroughs had been and were a most useful and efficient instrument. But by the scheme of the Government the very boroughs which had returned to the House representatives of the commercial, financial, colonial, and Indian interests, were to be virtually disfranchised, and the House was called upon to attack about half of the whole number of boroughs in the country. In his opinion the proposition for grouping places already represented would be to realize a grave anomaly by a process of wanton injustice, and would produce a feeble and imperfect local representation. The system was one which would prove a complete failure, and which ought not to receive the sanction of the House. The grouping of unrepresented places would on the other hand introduce popular and vigorous elements. The fact appeared to him to be that the House and the country were in ignorance as to how it should proceed, and ignorance never could settle any thing. They were in a scrape, and he would despair of a solution of the difficulty were it not that he had unlimited confidence in the kindness and good sense of the House of Commons. The House ought to come forward and help the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to recross the Rubicon, build up his bridges, and reconstruct his boats. There was no reason why he should be deterred by a false sentiment of honour from retreating from the