might not obtain admission into the House. He cited the re: corded objections of leading members on both sides of the House to the abolition of this qualifica: tion, including Lord Palmerston, Sir G. Grey, and Mr. Henley, and moved to defer the committee for six months.

Mr. K. Seymer, looking at the example of Scotland and the working of the principle of nonqualification there, and believing that our qualification laws were really a snare, while they were nugatory for their intended object, supported the Bill.

Mr. Drummond said, he regarded this as the first attempt to separate power from wealth, and if property was dissociated from power, it would be impossible to preserve property.

Sir G. Lewis said, the view he took of this measure was diametrically opposite to Mr. Drummond's. The real security for the social position of the members of that House, in his opinion, consisted in the power of coming forward as candidates, and submitting to the ordeal of an election. The substantial property qualification for a seat in that House would, after the passing of the Bill, remain as it was; while pitfalls, and those objections which were a scandal to their proceedings, would be removed.

Being supported by the Government and carrying the assent of a great majority of both parties, the Bill passed through the House of Commons with great facility. In the House of Lords the second reading was moved by Earl Fortescue, who justified the object of the measure on the general principle that requiring

a property qualification from members of Parliament limited the freedom of choice, and was an infringement on the rights of the people. In practice the present law was constantly evaded. Of the facility with which it was broken through, he gave a striking illustration in the case of an Irish member, who marked out an estate on the map in a wild region of the country, and on that qualification sat through two Parliaments. The present Bill was supported by some of the principal members of the Government in the other House, and would not, he believed, now be opposed.

Earl Grey thought the Bill of itself was unimportant, and he should not offer any opposition to it. He saw nothing unreasonable in requiring such a property qualification from members as would guarantee their independence; but the law as it stood was evaded, and the guarantee was weakened. The measure, however, in another point of view was important; he considered it only one of a series put forward by a party that desired to effect a total change in the representative system-a change that would bring it closer to a democracy; that party knew it was hopeless to propose all they contemplated in any one great scheme; but they were obtaining their object by degrees, and in detail. Their Lordships should beware how they were drawn into those changes step by step.

Lord Ebury approved the measure, which might be dealt with on its own merits; he could not consider it as part of any great plan.

The Duke of Rutland protested

against the Bill, as the present law had never excluded any one from Parliament.

The Earl of Derby thought there was no occasion for the solemn warning Earl Grey had given against sweeping changes; no one would resist such ulterior measures more strenuously than himself. He did not see how the present Bill was connected with them; and it did not follow that because the House of Commons had passed this measure, it would agree to the changes Earl Grey had alluded to. The House of Commons was at that moment, he believed, considering a Bill affecting the 101. franchise in counties, and that Bill he should strongly oppose. So each change should be dealt with by itself, not in reference to others not before them. As to the question of a property qualification, the measure was not important enough to be added to the causes of difference already existing between the two Houses of Parliament. He did not believe the abolition of the qualification would make any substantial difference in the

condition of the House of Commons, and the argument that the abolition would encourage men of straw to set up as candidates at elections, was met by the fact that this did not happen in Scotland, where no qualification was required. As the present law was constantly, almost with connivance, evaded, and as the more rigid restriction had been in the course of years gradually relaxed, he should not oppose the Bill.

The Duke of Newcastle supported the measure on its own merits; in a moral sense it was a very important step.

When a law was evaded on all occasions

they were bound to repeal it, as creating a moral evil. The abolition of the property qualification might well be followed up by a measure abolishing the privilege of arrest for debt enjoyed by members of both Houses of Parliament. They might safely remove all such restrictions. If some poor men did get into Parliament, they were likely to be more honest than those speculative politicians who supported any Government for the advantages they could obtain for themselves or their friends.

Earl Granville felt assured the law could not remain in its present state. If they were to resist all trifling reforms, because greater measures were supposed to be in reserve, they were bound to consider what was the chance of any great comprehensive scheme being proposed. He saw no probability of such measures in the present state of the Government, the House of Commons, or the country.

Lord Campbell spoke briefly in favour of the measure: he had always thought the property qua

lification useless.

The Bill was then read a second time. On the third reading it met with some further ineffectual opposition from Lord Ravensworth, Lord Denman, and the Earl of Wicklow, but was eventually passed into a law.

Another measure proposed by the same honourable gentleman, but not with the same success, was for the extension of the franchise for counties in England and Wales to occupiers at 101. per annum, the same proposition which had in former Sessions been made and carried in the House of Commons. In moving

for leave to bring in this Bill on the 27th of April, Mr. Locke King noticed briefly the objections commonly alleged against such a measure, observing, with reference to one of these objections, that it was a piecemeal measure of reform,-that in the present state of the question he preferred dealing with it by an honest and just measure of this kind that would remove an anomaly.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Byng.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had no objection to urge against the purpose of the Bill; he was not unwilling to extend the county franchise and to improve the exercise of it, but there were considerations which induced him to believe that this Bill would embarrass those who wished to improve the franchise. Referring to the existing disproportion in respect to the representation between the counties and the boroughs, this Bill, he observed, would increase the anomaly. If the House were to agree to this motion on the ground of a great improvement of the representation, it was impossible it could assent to a principle that there should be a small number of members returned by a large constituency, and a large number returned by a small constituency. Such a question as this could not be dealt with partially; a small, "honest, and just" measure might do large injustice; and this motion would aggravate the anomaly he had referred to, by increasing the disproportion between the county and the borough representation. He could not hold out that it would be his duty to propose a

measure conceived in this spirit, which would lead to jealousy and protracted agitation. It appeared to him that the question of the representation of the people in that House must be considered as a whole, and approached in a calm spirit; and he could not doubt that if Parliament did approach this great subject in a mood not unworthy of it, it would not be impossible to produce a measure that would give satisfaction to all who desired to add to the constitutional strength of the country. He could not sanction the bringing forward of any measure, which, if carried, would create great injustice and embarrassment to future legislation. It was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give their consideration to the whole question of Parliamentary representation, and he felt it his duty to move the previous question.

Lord J. Russell observed that Mr. Disraeli had attempted to draw a line between the representation of counties and boroughs which was not founded in substantial justice. He had likewise argued that this question ought to be taken as a whole; but, if there were difficulties in the way of a large measure, was it not wise to adopt such a proposition as the present? Mr. Disraeli had held out a prospect of a measure of his own; but he (Lord John) recommended the House at once to accept this Bill, which, if not a bird in the hand, was preferable to one in the bush.

After some further discussion, in which Mr. Knightley, Mr. Bentinck, and Mr. Stanhope strongly opposed the measure, while Mr.

John Locke and Mr. Labouchere supported it, leave was given to bring in the Bill. The opposition was renewed on the second reading by Mr. Du Cane, who moved "the previous question." Short as the Bill was, he observed, it involved one of the most important questions submitted to the House during the present Session. He did not deny that the county franchise might be very beneficially extended; that there were anomalies and inconsistencies in it; but the greatest anomaly was that, of late years, small towns had begun to usurp a predominating influence over county elections. He ventured to think that it was of the utmost importance to the interests of the country that a settlement of such a question as this should be one that the people would consider final, for frequent constitutional changes were most dangerous. Having stated the principal objections he entertained to passing the Bill at this time, he appealed to the opinions of members of no mean authority in the House which fortified the conclusion at which he had arrived.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Miles, who thought it better to wait till next year, when the whole question of reform could be considered, which the present Government had pledged itself to undertake.

Lord Palmerston said the Bill of last year had a different title and a different intention, that of assimilating the county and the borough franchise; but this Bill only reduced the county qualification, so as to extend the franchise for counties. The late Government, when the Bill of last year was introduced, contemplated a

Reform Bill, and were of opinion that the House should trust them, and wait for that measure. The present Government, however, were not pledged to produce such a measure, but only to consider the question. He held that this Bill was not the Bill of last year, and that a person who voted against that Bill might consistently vote for this. As he was one of those who thought it might be advisable to reduce the county franchise and to extend the constituency, he was prepared to agree to the second reading of the Bill in order to see in what degree the county franchise could be reduced consistently with the welfare of the country and the balance of interests.

Mr. Henley charged Lord Palmerston with inconsistency. He had not said what was the figure at which he would fix the county franchise in the committee. Everybody must see that the object of this Blll, like the last, was to assimilate the county with the borough franchise.

The House then divided upon the question "that this question be now put," which was carried in the affirmative by 226 to 168. The Bill was therefore read a second time on the 10th of June, but the Session being now somewhat advanced, and the time of Parliament being greatly occupied with the Indian question and other matters, Mr. Locke King found it beyond his power to carry the measure through its further stages, and was consequently obliged to drop it.

The abolition of the property qualification encouraged another attempt to alter the law of Parliament by removing the exemption enjoyed by members of the