which is the source of much discontent, and which may ultimately lead to public disaster-I ask if it is at all met by the measure of the hon. Member for Surrey? On the contrary, while some complain that property is too much represented in the constitution, what is the answer of the hon. Member for Surrey to the claims of labour? The answer is, 'We want to represent property still more.' I must say that I cannot myself sanction legislation of so crude a character. I believe it to be founded upon principles altogether fallacious. I have thought it right to say on the part of my colleagues what I have said before for myself. But let our feelings not be misconceived. We do not associate an extension of the suffrage necessarily with an extension of democratic power. If we see any well-matured measure brought forward, not with the view of serving a mere party purpose, but with the sincere desire of giving the deserving artisan the exercise of the suffrage in a manner consistent with the existence and maintenance of institutions which we believe to be as much for the interest of the artisan as any other class in the country,—I say that to such a measure we shall be disposed to give a dispassionate and kind consideration. But the motion of the hon. Member for Surrey is not of that class; and until some measure is brought forward which we think is calculated to meet the difficulties and exigencies of the case, we must be allowed to take our stand on the settlement which exists-not from any superstitious reverence for that settlement, but because we are opposed to the system of year after year tampering with the

constitution; a system which we believe to be the source of political weakness and of national debility."

After a few words from Sir Benjamin Hall in favour of the motion, and a short reply from Mr. Locke King, who disclaimed the intention to increase the representation of property, his aim being only to make that representation more fair and equal, the House divided, when the numbers werefor the motion, 149; against it, 202; majority, 53. The Bill was consequently lost.

A subsidiary measure of reform in the electoral system was proposed and successfully carried out in the present session by Lord Brougham, who in an early part of it laid on the table of the House of Lords a Bill to remedy an inconvenience in the law affecting the assembly of a new Parliament after a dissolution. The object of the measure was, to reduce the period of fifty days heretofore required to elapse between a dissolution and the meeting of a new Parliament to thirtyfive days. The former period was fixed by usage and statute under circumstances which had ceased to operate. After explaining this Bill, Lord Brougham added some earnest words, imploring their Lordships to take immediate and stringent measures to put down bribery and corrupt practices at elections; especially counselling that efforts should be more than hitherto directed against the giver of the bribe, and expressing his opinion that nothing done would be effectual till the Legislature made it compulsory upon every Member of Parliament on taking his seat to take an explicit oath that neither directly nor indirectly, neither by himself nor by

The Earl of Derby said that on the part of the Government he should offer no objection to the measure proposed by Lord Brougham. He agreed also in the spirit of the noble and learned Lord's remarks respecting bribery at elections, and promised the concurrence of himself and his colleagues in any measures that might promise a remedy for the evil. The Bill introduced by Lord Brougham met with no opposition in either House, and was passed into a law.

To meet the grievous and increasing offence of electoral corruption, the new Government, soon after their accession to power, declared their intention of supporting and carrying out two measures which had originated with their predecessors in office. The last preceding election at St. Alban's having disclosed the existence of widespread and long-standing corruption in that borough, an Act had been passed shortly before the dissolution, authorizing the appointment of Commissioners for inquiring into the malpractices which had prevailed at that and preceding elections. The investigation took place, and the report of the Commissioners displayed a system of bribery so extensive and systematic, and continued for so long a period, that no measure short of the disfranchisement of the borough appeared an adequate remedy for the evil. The Government of Lord John Russell accordingly brought in a Bill for that purpose, which Mr. Walpole, on the part of the new Administration, determined to take up. It met with little opposition, except some faint resistance in the House of Lords,

the ancient borough of St. Alban's was deservedly deprived of its electoral privileges. The necessity, however, of a more extended application of this ultimate remedy to corrupt boroughs, and the inconvenience of having to pass a special Act for proceeding by Commission in each instance, suggested to Lord John Russell the propriety of introducing a general measure, under which a Commission might be directed to any place in which the inquiry of an election committee proved extensive bribery to have taken place. The noble Lord brought in a Bill for this purpose, which, on his retirement from office, was also taken up by his successor, and though considerably modified in its passage through the House of Lords, it finally received the Royal Assent. This Act provided, that upon the joint address of both Houses of Parliament to the Crown, representing that it had appeared by the report of an election committee that extensive bribery had occurred at any place returning Members, Her Majesty might issue a Commission to three barristers to institute a local inquiry into the case, and to report thereupon to Parliament. Very stringent powers were conferred on the Commissioners for this purpose, and a procedure was directed, nearly similar to that which had terminated so effectually in the instance of St. Alban's.

On another measure affecting the representation, the Government were less successful. This was the plan proposed by them for the appropriation of the four seats rendered disposable by the disfranchisement of Sudbury and St. Alban's.

Mr. Disraeli moved for leave to bring in a Bill for this purpose on the 10th of May. In commencing his speech, he observed that although he had not specified all the measures which Her Majesty's Government had proposed, as being of paramount importance, to bring before the House prior to the dissolution of Parliament, and the House had been too generous to demand more precise information, he did, in the middle of March, voluntarily express their intentions with regard to some of those measures. He had then said that one of those measures which they deemed of paramount importance was, in the event of the Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Alban's receiving the sanction of Parliament, the completion of the constitutional number of the aggregate Members of the House of Commons, which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, was highly expedient before the dissolution of Parliament. He was aware that if he were asked what magic or cabalistic virtue resided in the number 658, he should be extremely perplexed; and he should be equally so if he were asked why the number of a jury should be fixed at twelve. But the foundation of all these arrangements was prescription-a rule created by experience, and sanctioned by custom; and the time had not arrived when prescription could be lightly treated by the House. The violation of prescription was an element of disturbance; and, if for no other reason, he felt it to be his duty to warn the House against a continuous and systematic deficiency in the aggregate number of the House of Commons. If the present Government had followed their own inclination, and consulted

their convenience, there was hardly any subject they would have more studiously avoided than one calculated to exasperate that jealousy which already existed between the towns and the country, and which he hoped hereafter to allay. This jealousy had given rise to a desire in large portions of the community to see whether the elements of the electoral body might not be combined in some other forms. Many plans had been proposed which were entitled to consideration. An hon. Member had given notice that very evening of a motion to assign the four seats to the London Universities. Similar claims had been made on behalf of the Inns of Court, and various learned bodies, corporate and unincorporated. The claims of science were captivating to the imagination, and the proposition based on them had engaged the approbation of many respectable individuals; but that proposition was met by difficulties not inconsiderable. The Royal Society, for instance, was ancient, royally founded, and both celebrated in the historic names by which it has been adorned, and justly proud of those by whom it was at present distinguished. But in these times learned societies no longer consisted of learned men. The necessity of having a large revenue, the necessity of raising that revenue by public subscription, permitted a large number of individuals to become members of learned societies, without any claim to the distinction beyond that of their wealth and general respectability of character. Again, where could you draw the line? On what principle could we shut out the Geographical Society, or the Zoological Society, or the Astronomical Society? And what was there to

prevent from starting up to-morrow a new geographical society, or a new zoological society, or a new astronomical society, which, on the same plea, might urge a claim for the suffrage? It would be in the power of any body of men-a club, for example-to give themselves a scientific name, and affect scientific pursuits, and upon the strength of these pretensions, to claim the exercise of the franchise. The Royal Corporations-the Colleges of Surgeons and of Physicians, and the Academy of Arts-were selfelected bodies without impugning their conduct, and though their career might be satisfactory to the country, he did not think we could look for the elements of a popular constituency among a group of self-elected corporations. The claims of the Universities of Scotland were plausible, but the elements of a popular constituency would be wholly wanting in them. There was no body in the Scotch Universities like the Convocation in the English Universities. The students never, or at least very rarely, became graduates. There were no privileges given to the students who graduated, and therefore they very seldom took a degree. If, therefore, you invested the Universities of Scotland with the privilege of sending representatives to Parliament, the privilege would be in the possession of only a few rectors and some hundred professors. The claim of the London University was at present too immature, and its development too imperfect; at the utmost, a scattered constituency of a few hundreds would be collected. That of the four Inns of Court was founded on a most respectable constituency of some thousands; but the Government felt that it would be a

hopeless task to propose to the House of Commons to allocate one ortwo Members to the Inns of Court, unless there were other constituencies of the same kind enfranchised. He therefore reluctantly renounced any attempt to form a constituency from these elements. Under these circumstances, the course which the Government had thought upon the whole, the best was this: they had considered that the claims of different portions of the constituency depended very much upon the relative degrees of representation they now possessed; and, in this view, the claim of one constituency seemed to be paramount, namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire. They proposed, therefore, that two of the vacant seats should be awarded to that county; that the West Riding should be divided into two portions, defined by the boundary of the Midland Railway, the portion south and west of the line to be called the South Division of the West Riding; the portion north and east of the line to be called the Northern Division; the constituency of the latter division would be 17,965; that of the former 18,785. With regard to the two other seats, the Government had thought they could not be guided by a better principle than in the other case. The question under consideration was not one of a large Parliamentary reform, but of apportioning members with due deference to existing Parliamentary arrangements. Taking, therefore, as a test the degrees of representation which certain counties, cities, and boroughs possessed, Her Majesty's Government had resolved to recommend the apportionment of the two other vacant seats to the Southern

Division of the county of Lancaster. Mr. Disraeli combatted some of the objections that might be started against his plan. It might be urged, that as the forfeited seats had been lost to the towns, they ought to have been given to the towns. But he thought this objection would be difficult to sustain.

In each of the two county constituencies to which he had referred, there were scores of towns far more considerable than Sudbury or St. Alban's. In fine, he repeated his conviction, that it was of the utmost importance that the "constitutional number" of the House of Commons should be completed before a general election; that the "continuous and systematic deficiency in our numbers is perilous to the welfare of the country, and the honour of the House;" and that the sanction of his proposition would "tend to increase the strength and lustre of the House of Commons."

Mr. Gladstone said he should confine himself to the question whether this subject was one into which the House at the present moment should consent to enter, and it was his intention to move that the House pass to the order of the day. If Mr. Disraeli had shown that there was a constitutional urgency for a settlement of this question, the House should grant him leave to introduce his Bill; but if he had failed to show a constitutional necessity, he (Mr. Gladstone) contended that this was no trivial or optional matter, and that a strong constitutional principle called upon the House to refuse such permission. Mr. Disraeli had said there was no magical virtue in the number 658; but was there any virtue in law, or principle in the Constitution, or anything

VOL. XCIV.

beyond accident, which recommended that number? Since 1844, no members had sat for Sudbury, although three Ministries had been in power in the interval, and no member of the Government or of the Opposition had called upon the House to vindicate what Mr. Disraeli considered a sacred prescription. It was a pure question of convenience and policy what the number of the members of that House should be. Mr. Gladstone then turned to what he regarded as the essential point in the question. There had been a clear understanding between the Government and the House, that no measures except those of immediate urgency were to be submitted to Parliament before its dissolution, and that understanding was founded on principles of the highest moment and importance. "It was in vindication of the constitutional principle that a GovernIment which found itself at issue with the existing Parliament upon a cardinal point of its policy, was bound either to resign (which of course no one recommends under the circumstances) or else to make its appeal to the people. there was another object which Parliament, I think, had in view; and that was, to discharge its solemn duty to those great principles of commercial policy which we are bound, I think, to see well brought home into haven, and that at the earliest moment. It is a folly against which every man ought to guard, to suppose that because the Government are in power, and the principles of our law in regard to commerce have not been altered by past measures, therefore we are to rest satisfied. It would be, I think, no fulfilment, but an aban-. donment of our duty, to be con

[G]

But