In the discussion which ensued, much variety of opinion was elicited. Mr. Bentinck objected to the measure, claiming all the new seats, if any were to be given, for the counties. Mr. Stirling put in a claim for Scotland, and urged that a Scotch University ought to be represented in that House. Mr. Maguire thought that of the four seats two might well be assigned to Ireland and two to Scotland. Mr. Ayrton spoke with some contempt of the measure, as the only fraction of reform offered by the Government. He at the same time controverted Mr. Bentinck's argument in favour of giving increased representation to the counties. Mr. Knightley supported Mr. Bentinck's views.

Lord Palmerston said the Government did not propose this measure as a substitute for a Reform Bill. They had stated their reasons why they had not felt it to be their duty this session to introduce a comprehensive measure of reform; but they did feel it their duty not to permit these four seats to remain vacant any longer, and he thought the arrangement they had proposed was as fair as any other. He did not think there was any case for an addition to the repre

On the second reading of the Bill there was again considerable debate. Mr. Bentinck renewed his claim on behalf of the English counties; Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Cumming Bruce, and other Scotch members, advocated those of the Scottish Universities; and objections were urged from many quarters against giving an increased numerical strength to metropolitan constituencies.

The second reading of the Bill, however, was agreed to, it being considered that the amendments, in regard to the places to be enfranchised, would be better discussed in Committee.

The committal of the Bill met, however, with a preliminary opposition from Earl Jermyn, who moved that it be deferred till that day six months. The noble lord argued that the borough of Sudbury had received hard measure; that it had been made a scapegoat; and that, unless the Legislature were prepared to act upon some broad and comprehensive principle, dealing with the whole subject of bribery and corruption at elections upon some definite and well-considered basis, not with isolated cases, its proceeding in this matter would become a laughing-stock and a mockery, instead of a warning. He thought it not unreasonable to ask the House to pause before it immolated these unfortunate boroughs, others not a whit more worthy being suffered to retain the right of representation. He did not oppose the Bill further than by proposing to delay it till the House had discussed the question, what should be the practice in future in cases of

tion.

Sir G. Lewis observed that the motion of Lord Jermyn was an appeal for a rehearing of the question as to the disfranchisement of Sudbury, and he (Sir George) was not prepared, after what had passed, to consent to rehear it. If Sudbury was to be restored to the representation, he did not see why Grampound should not be re-enfranchised. Nothing could be more notorious than the long-continued corruption of Sudbury.

Mr. Stirling, though he thought the House was indebted to Lord Jermyn for raising this discussion, should support the Bill, because, though imperfect, it was a step in the right direction. Sudbury and St. Alban's, however, had, in his opinion, a title to complain that other offending boroughs-such as Gloucester and Wakefield-were spared.

After some remarks by Colonel Dunne, Mr. Scully, and Mr. Parker,

Sir H. Willoughby thought the House was about to enter upon a controversy as to the claims of different constituencies, full of danger, and that it would be infinitely better that the selections should be made by the Government on their responsibility.

A division took place on Lord Jermyn's motion, which was negatived by 338 to 44.

Mr. Collins then proposed in committee that two of the four seats should be given to the West Riding of Yorkshire, resting his argument upon various statistical grounds in favour of that great constituency.

Sir G. Lewis objected to this amendment, which, after some

Colonel Dunne then moved that one of the seats be assigned to the county of Cork. This amendment, also, being opposed by the Ministers, was negatived by 228 to 67.

Mr. Bazley proposed to add another member to Salford, but on objection taken, withdrew his motion. Upon the clause by which it was proposed to constitute the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington into a new borough, Mr. Knightley raised a question, by moving the omission of those words. Upon this motion, a debate of some interest took place -a strong objection to the increase of metropolitan members being manifested by the House.

Sir G. Lewis observed that Mr. Knightley, having made no counter proposal, had adopted hardly a fair way of putting the question before the committee. He should, therefore, merely state the ground upon which the Government had proposed to assign one of the seats to Chelsea and Kensington, which was mainly the great increase of the population of the metropolis.

Mr. Disraeli pointed out very serious errors in the figures stated by Sir G. Lewis, which, he observed, destroyed the only argument in support of the proposal of the Government.

Sir J. Graham, who had given notice of an amendment, in the event of "the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington " being left out of the clause, to insert "the University of London," said, considering the population and wealth of the two parishes, he should support the proposition of the Government, believing that Chel

Mr. T. Duncombe moved, that the borough of Barnsley be inserted, to which Sir G. Lewis objected, that by so doing, all the four seats would be given to a limited area. Mr. Scully again urged the claims of Cork. Mr. Ayrton complained that the Government embarrassed the Committee by allowing the seat to be scrambled for. They should declare their intentions and adhere to them.

Sir G. Lewis said the difficulty into which the Committee had fallen was not created by the Government; it had arisen from the form of the motion adopted by the Committee, to omit certain words in the clause without proposing to substitute any others. The Government would be prepared to support the proposition to assign a third member to Middlesex, when that proposition (of which notice had been given) should be made.

After a desultory debate, the Committee divided on a motion by Mr. Knightley to add another member for the County of Middlesex. This was rejected by 236 to 186.

VOL. CIII.

Lord Palmerston then suggested that the Committee should agree to one of the seats being allotted to Birkenhead, and he should propose to give two to the West Riding, and to divide that great constituency into two parts. The proposition, so far as related to Birkenhead, was then carried by 163 to 26.

Mr. T. Duncombe at the last sitting on the Bill objected to it as it stood in toto. He moved that it be deferred for three months. This motion was supported by Mr. Scully and Mr. Coningham. Mr. Dent and Mr. Hadfield spoke on the other side.

Lord J. Russell thought Mr. Duncombe had made out no case for the rejection of the Bill. He denied that it could be considered as a new Bill. The propositions of the Government as to the disposal of three out of the four seats had been assented to by the House, which had rejected their proposal as to the fourth. They now proposed to give that seat to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to divide that Riding.

Lord Fermoy upbraided the Government with want of manliness in not standing up against a majority in that House got together to act on different views and principles, and in not appealing to the people.

Mr. Duncombe's motion was then rejected, on a division, by 204 to 28.

Mr. Stirling next moved to leave out Clause 1, giving an additional member to the Southern Division of Lancashire, and, in lieu thereof, to insert clauses empowering the Universities of Scotland collectively to return one member to Parliament. He proposed that the franchise should [D]

be exercised by the members of the General Councils of the Universities, a constituency that would number 3508, comprising, he said, a variety of classes, with a slighter infusion of the clerical element than the constituencies of Oxford and Cambridge, and who would be likely to return members worthy to sit beside the representatives of those Universities.

Sir G. Lewis said the motion called upon the House to rescind a decision come to after discussion and a division. Although the constitution of the Scotch Universities had been altered, and a system was at work by which they were gradually acquiring a body capable of exercising the franchise, it was not at present desirable, in his opinion, to give them this right. At some future period their claim would be entitled to be fairly considered by the House; but, at present he thought they would not be justified in giving it a preference over that of South Lancashire.

Mr. C. Bruce supported the amendment.

Sir J. Graham said he had given notice of a motion to bring before the House the claims of the London University; but, having consulted the authorities of that University, he, with their concurrence, abstained from obtruding its claims upon the House. Those claims had been favourably considered upon former occasions, and he hoped that, in future cases of disfranchisement, justice would be done both to the London University and to the Universities of Scotland. Upon the present occasion, however, there being only four seats to be disposed of, and three having been

already appropriated, he should give his support to the proposal of the Government for the disposal of the remaining seat.

After some further discussion, the amendment was withdrawn.

Sir G. Lewis then proposed the necessary clauses for dividing the West Riding into two parts, giving two members to each division, thereby appropriating the seat originally designated for the metropolitan borough, to the West Riding. After some objections from Mr. Baines, these clauses were agreed to.

The Bill having, not without some vicissitudes, reached the House of Lords, the second reading was moved there by Earl Granville on the 29th of July. The noble earl, in a short speech, explained that the object of the measure was to transfer two of the forfeited seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire, one to East Lancashire, and one to Birkenhead.

Lord Stratheden thought that so important a measure should not be discussed at this late period of the session, and moved that it be referred to a Select Committee.

Lord Derby did not see the necessity of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, as it was a very plain and straightforward measure. He thought the Government had done right in conferring a seat on Birkenhead, and that, in distributing the other seats, they had acted as fairly as the circumstances allowed. He trusted hereafter that Her Majesty's ministers would not require Her Majesty to pledge herself in the speech from the throne to a measure of reform, unless they had full confidence

that they would be able to carry the measure they brought forward. He also wished it to be clearly understood, that neither this nor any future Government was under any pledges to introduce the reform question, unless they in their discretion determined so to do.

Lord Granville opposed the amendment, and stated that the Government, though dissenting from the notion of finality, thought it would be wrong to pledge themselves to the introduction of any measure of reform which they did not feel perfectly assured of carrying out.

The amendment was then withdrawn. After an unsuccessful attempt by Lord Stratheden to give an additional seat to South Lancashire, the clauses agreed to, and the Bill passed.

were

A novel experiment in the conduct of Parliamentary Elections was embodied in a Bill introduced by Mr. Dodson, which, although of limited application, involved a principle of some importance. The object of this Bill was to facilitate Elections for the Universities by permitting voting papers to be used and sent by the post. The subject came on for discussion in the House of Commons on the 24th April, when Sir G. Lewis, on behalf of the Government, stated his view of the general character of the Bill, and the reasons which occurred to him for and against its object. The Universities, he remarked, were in a peculiar position in regard to the election of their representatives. The electors were not united by any local ties, except so far as they were resident members of the Universities, and it could not be

said that they had any common character. There were obvious objections to making the rule universal, which did not apply to the Universities; but its effect would give their constituencies a much more clerical character than at present. If the Bill passed, this would be the first time such a mode of voting was adopted, so that there existed no authoritative model for the details of the Bill, which should, therefore, be well considered, and he suggested whether it would not be more convenient to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Mr. Walpole was in favour of voting by proxy for members for the Universities: at the same time he thought that strict precautions must be adopted to prevent abuse. He suggested various alterations which could, in his opinion, be well considered in a Select Committee.

Mr. Warner entertained objections to the Bill which he thought would greatly change the University constituencies.

Mr. Denman and Lord Enfield supported the measure.

Mr. S. Estcourt did not apprehend that the voting by proxy would too much increase the clerical element in the constituencies.

Mr. Henley observed that the Bill would lay a foundation for an extension of the principle of proxy-voting; the details, therefore, should be very carefully framed.

Sir W. Heathcote thought the reasons offered for referring the Bill to a Select Committee unanswerable. In his opinion, the interference which the mode of voting by proxy papers would