true that some boroughs lay on the sea | House ought to make was that it should be coast and others inshore, but the dissimi-impartially applied. The hon. and learned larity between various classes and the Gentleman had talked about ignorance, and difference in their social positions was even had said that the Reform Bill of 1832 drew greater in counties than between boroughs, the line under 10,000. The fact, however, however wide apart. In boroughs again, was that it drew the line under 4,000. a man living in one street knew very little Well, that Bill took away a Member from of his neighbour in the next; and one of every borough with a population under the recommendations of large constituen- 4,000. The Bill of 1859 drew the line cies lay in the variety of opinions, associa- at 6,000 that of 1860 at 7,000; and tions, and sympathies, by which in the that of 1866 drew the line at 8,000. Now, aggregate they were animated. Geographi- however, it was represented that the line cal position was supposed to be of great of 8,000 was entirely arbitrary, because importance in the grouping of boroughs, certain party results were supposed to ensue but this consideration was by no means con- from it. Why, an equally good argument clusive. It was some little distance from might be brought forward wherever the Ayr to Oban and from Oban to Inverary, and line was drawn. At the same time, the yet in practice no great inconvenience re- hon. and learned Gentleman would easily sulted from the circumstance. The group-understand that the lower you went in this ing together of four boroughs might have respect the greater became the Conservaa tendency to increase expense, but by no tive strength, and the higher you went means to the degree which had been the greater became the Liberal strength. represented. He knew something, he was If they went up to 15,000, you would find sorry to say, of this question of expense the Liberal element in greater preponderhimself, but he knew also that many con- ance, and if they went up to 20,000 it tests in the Scotch boroughs were con- would be still more so. In fact, they would ducted at no greater expense than would find the boroughs with the largest populabe incurred in a single represented town. tions almost entirely possessed by Liberal Traditional bribery, he believed, would representatives. The Government had become most difficult of maintenance in taken a medium line in this matter, and the face of a system of grouping. The he did not think that it was fairly open to system of bribery was traditional in Eng- objection. Well, then with regard to land, and it was because it was not so in Scotland that it prevailed to so much smaller an extent in that country. But when once they united two or three places into one constituency the opportunities of corrupt practices must be very much diminished, and he should expect, as one of the results of the Government measure, a considerable decrease in bribery at elections. The hon. and learned Gentleman -passing from what was a fair and distinct argument had said that he could not help looking to see what would be the party result of the scheme of re-distribution, and he had made an ingenious statement to show that if the figure had been fixed somewhat higher the Government might have done themselves a little more harm. He said that if the limit had been fixed at 10,000 it would have been so much the worse for them on the Government side of the House. On this, he would remark that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire introduced his Bill in 1859, he had also drawn a line, and had stated that in order to procure the necessary seats some arbitrary rule must be laid down, and that the only condition which the grouping. Was there anything so very absurd in this? He could not go into details as to which borough should be tied to which, or whether it was better that it should belong to one group or to another. Surely these were points that could properly be considered in Committee, and it was impossible to pretend that they affected the principle of the Bill. The Bill embodied two principles with regard to grouping. The first was, not to group unrepresented towns with a large town already represented; and the second was, not to group unrepresented towns of considerable size with smaller unrepresented towns. It would not be reasonable, for instance, to tack on Wallingford to a town like Oxford; and, on the other hand, it was not desirable to group the smaller boroughs with unrepresented towns, which had no other claim to representation except the circumstance of their being in the vicinity of some decaying or rotten borough. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire wished to eliminate the urban element out of the counties, so as to leave a purely agricultural constituency. In his opinion, however, that was not consistent with the Constitution of this country, and it would be the greatest possible evil. It was, on the contrary, the existence of the urban element in the counties which made them a valuable part of the representation. However, he would pass from that subject to what had been said about the three Members for counties. His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne recognized in that the principle of electoral districts, but hon. Gentlemen were always discovering some principle which in reality was not involved in the present measure. They found universal suffrage in a £7 franchise and electoral districts in a simple proposal to add a third Member to certain counties. It should be borne in mind, however, that no fewer than seven counties already sent three Members to Parliament. It was objected that in unicorn counties the minority would be oppressed; but he had always thought that the advantage of having three Members was that the minority would be represented. In fact, it would be found that in the seven counties which now returned three Members there was no contest, while in four of them representatives were in politics two to one. Then it was said that the boundaries of boroughs ought to have been settled first of all. But he would ask whether any Government had ever proposed to do that first? It was not done in 1859; on the contrary, the boundaries were to be settled after the Bill, and, if he was not mistaken, they were to be settled upon a plan very similar to that now proposed by the Government. At all events, that was a question of detail which might be discussed in Committee. Surely they ought not to discard both the Franchise and the Re-distribution Bills because the question of boundaries had not been decided. He was quite certain that the House would never come to such a result. The right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of the franchise, and talked of household suffrage as if it necessarily implied universal suffrage. He thought a very erroneous notion was prevalent as to the opinions entertained in former times on the question of lowering the franchise. It was thought that a £7 franchise was the invention of the advanced school of Liberal politicians, and that the old constitutional Liberal party ought to be careful, and jealous, and suspicious how they followed such leading. This was not the case. In the year 1797 there was a Motion made in the House of Commons for the Reform of Parliament, and the proposition was that there should be household suffrage. That proposition was supported in some most remarkable speeches, one of which was delivered by Lord Grey, the author of the Reform Bill of 1832. Mr. Fox also supported the Motion in one of the most powerful and fervid speeches that he ever delivered. He mentioned these facts to show that the idea of trusting the people did not emanate from the Manchester school. He had listened with admiration and wonder to the brilliant speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, and he wondered, not only at the consummate ability displayed, but also at the strange doctrines he held respecting the representation of the people. It appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was not simply afraid of democracy, but that he denied the whole virtue of the representative principle. He could not reconcile the views of the right hon. Gentleman with that great life-giving principle which lay at the root of our free institutions. He said that what were wanted were men of culture, of education, gentlemen of good manners and good position to conduct the affairs of this country. That was true, but those things did not flourish except in the free air of popular opinion. It had never been possible to get the best blood of the country to devote nights and days to labour for the good of the country, save in those lands where free institutions existed in the sphere of democracy. His right hon. Friend would act as a forester who would nurse and train up his trees one day merely to cramp the vigour of their flourishing maturity. Without the free air of Liberal institutions and popular opinion they would wither. His right hon. Friend said, “We are all for government by numbers;" well, representative government was government by numbers; and if he did not mistake the House of Commons was simply an embodiment of democracy; for democracy meant the government of the people; and if the Members of the House of Commons did not represent them he did not know who did. He used that term as a distinction from oligarchy and government by classes. Our government was not a democracy, but a mixed government of Lords and Commons. The oligarchial element was entirely excluded. He ventured to say that his doctrine had never been gainsaid by any writer on the Constitution-namely, that the House of Commons was an embodiment of democracy-an embodiment of government by numbers. It did not follow, however, upon this that every one should be admitted to the franchise. A man was enfranchised because he was a citizen, and because he was qualified to exercise the franchise; and those were excluded who were not qualified to give an intelligent, independent, and honest vote. Intelligence, integrity, and independence were the things sought, and when found the task was done. That was the true doctrine of a Liberal and free Government; and he ventured to say that in carrying it out to its proper conclusion they would lose none of those ornaments of the culture, and the acquirement of which his hon. Friend was so justly proud. Instead of losing those qualities they would gain them because they flourished in the air of freedom. He was not afraid of the working classes. The House had heard too much about class influence there was nothing of the kind recognized in the Constitution. The country did not depend merely upon the franchise, but upon other and more subtle elements. This country had its roots deep in the soil of old tradition. It was strengthened, nourished, and nurtured by the atmosphere of free public opinion, and that being the case he had no fear at all. The Constitution would be strengthened by following out or returning to its first principles, and carrying enfranchisement to those who were qualified by industry, in tegrity, and intelligence to exercise it, and drawing such a line as would best suit and promote the interests of the country. LORD JOHN MANNERS moved the adjournment of the debate. LORD ELCHO: Before the Motion is agreed to I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wells being rejected, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill now before the House, and to endea vour with their whole power to carry it through Parliament during the present Session? I ask this question on behalf of those Gentlemen who, at a great sacrifice, but in obedience to a sense of public duty, have felt themselves obliged to oppose the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the question of Reform. They have no desire, I am sure, to place the Government in any difficulty that can be avoided, and it is quite evident that if the Government does not intend to persevere with the measure no useful purpose will be served by forcing those Gentlemen to divide against them on this question. It is currently reported and generally believed in the House that Her Majesty's Government intend to withdraw or not proceed with their Bill provided they have a majority in the division. Now, if this be so-if this be the intention of Her Majesty's Government-it, should be announced at once, in justice to Gentlemen who, as I have said, from a strong sense of duty, have felt themselves bound to place themselves in opposition to Her Majesty's Government on this question, but who still belong to the same party. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It appears to me that, if my noble Friend had found himself under an obligation to put a question of an unusual character upon the Motion to adjourn the debate, he certainly would have done well to have conveyed to Her Majesty's Government his intention of putting that question. It is not, however, simply on the ground of his having failed to give the slightest intimation of his intention that I shall found the answer I now give. I know nothing whatever of the rumours and nothing of the belief to which the noble Lord refers. What are the means and sources of his information he knows better than I do ; but as I know nothing of those rumours and nothing of that belief, I confess I am extremely sceptical as to the existence of the one or the currency of the other, and I am wholly incapable of affording any satisfaction to the curiosity of the noble Lord in regard to the question he has put. Sir, the proper time for declaring the intentions of the Government with respect to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells will be when I have the honour of addressing the House in the course of the debate, and I must request my noble Friend to have the goodness to wait till that time comes in order to obtain such information as, in the exercise of the best judgment we can form with respect to the performance of our duty and the public interests, it may then be in our power to give. Motion agreed to. Debate further adjourned till Monday next. RAILWAY COMPANIES' SECURITIES BILL AND RAILWAY DEBENTURES, &C., REGISTRY BILL. Select Committee on Railway Companies' Securities Bill and Railway Debentures, &c., Registry Bill nominated :-Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. TALBOT, Sir FRANCIS GOLDSMID, Sir JAMES FIELD, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. AYRTON, and Mr. FERGUSSON, Mr. THOMSON HANKEY, Mr. ScOURGOLDNEY:-Five to be the quorum. House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next. which he did not concur. He (Earl Nelson) had been surprised to hear that the noble Duke regarded his resignation as implying a complete separation from the Commission. He had indeed believed that the noble Duke had withdrawn his resignation, and he based that belief on the opinion that if the noble Duke had persevered in intending to resign, a meeting would subsequently have been called for the purpose of considering the subject; and on the report that the noble Duke had so far withdrawn his resignation as to consent to act upon the new Commission, and that he had acted in behalf of the Fund in the matter of completing the arrangements for the new Commission. He was happy to be able to add that notwithstanding the apparent misunderstanding, the interests of the Fund had not suffered in any way, and under the management of an admirable Executive Committee the affairs of the Fund were efficiently and satisfactorily administered. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, he differed from the noble Earl as to the efficient management of the Fund, and not being satisfied with the manner in which it was conducted, he resigned, and did not wish to be again connected with the Commission. METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL EARL NELSON desired to explain the apparent discrepancies between the Question asked by him on Friday evening and the answer given by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset), relative to the Royal Patriotic fund. On that occasion he addressed the noble Duke as President of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and had pointed out the fact that it was to him the Commissioners looked for the summonses calling them together when they were in difficulties, and that difficulty had arisen in calling the Commissioners together in consequence of the noble Duke's somewhat sudden resignation. If he remembered rightly, the noble Duke stated that at the time of his resignation he was simply acting as deputy for the Duke of Newcastle. The original Commission showed that the late Prince Consort was the first President, but after his lamented decease the Duke of Newcastle was elected to the chair, and always acted as Chairman at the subsequent meetings and discharged those which had formerly been performed by the President. On his illness the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) was requested to summon the Commission together, and it was to him that the Mem-introducing this clause had been quite bers of the Commission subsequently looked for direction in their proceedings. Another apparent discrepancy was the date of the last meeting of the Commission, which he had stated to be the 26th of July, 1864. It was, however, perfectly true that a meeting was held on the 10th of March, 1865, but he (Earl Nelson) had not referred to that meeting because it was specially summoned for a special object. The noble Duke having been outvoted in reference to Captain Fisborne's explanation, and having made a statement in reference to a new Commission, stated his intention to retire from the Commission because he did not wish to share in the responsibility of a decision in LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, wished to call the attention of their Lordships to one of its clauses, to which objections had been raised both in the other House of Parliament and in the public press-he referred to the clause by which the amount to be recovered in certain cases of death by accident was restricted to £100. The intention in misunderstood. By their original Act the Metropolitan Railway Company were required to send one train in the morning and another in the evening, each way at the fare of 1d., for the use of the working classes; but it was provided that in the event of an accident occurring to those trains the amount of compensation to those injured or to the families of those killed should not exceed the sum of £100. The trains running under the provision of the Act were much used by the labouring classes, not less than from 8,000 to 10,000 per week travelling by them. The company wished to extend this peculiar class of accommodation by running three of these PRIVATE BILLS. STANDING ORDer No. 184. trains every morning, and by giving liberty to every person holding a ticket for those trains to return by any train in the afternoon. A clause had, therefore, been inserted in the Bill before them limiting the amount of compensation in the event of any accident occurring to persons travelling on the Company's line with these labouring class tickets to £100. This arrangement was so beneficial to the working classes that it should be adopted; should, however, Parliament refuse to sanction the clause the Company would have to return to the limited accommodation of two trains, one in the morning the other in the evening. Moved, "That the Bill be now read to introduce any private feeling whatever; 2"-(The Lord Redesdale.) LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY thought their Lordships should not without careful consideration assent to the introduction into a Railway Bill of a new principle limiting the amount of compensation to be paid by the Railway Company in case of accidents arising upon their line. LORD REDESDALE said, it was not the introduction of a new principle. It already existed in the Act under which these LORD REDESDALE, in moving certain alterations in their Standing Orders relating to Bills authorizing the construction of Railways, said, he wished to recall to the recollection of their Lordships the speeches he had made on two former occasions with reference to the finance of Railway Companies. This subject, although of very great importance, had this advandiscuss without being influenced by party tage that it was one their Lordships could feeling. The question, indeed, was one into which it would be highly unbecoming and, for himself, his principle of action had always been never to introduce to the notice of the House any matter connected with the office he had the honour to hold with the slightest feeling of party spirit. In such matters he had invariably acted quite independent of what might be the feeling of the noble Earl the First Minister of the Crown, on the one hand, or of the the other. In like manner, he trusted noble Earl the leader of the Opposition on their Lordships would give a calm and impartial hearing to the subject, which, their serious and careful consideration. although not a very lively one, deserved The question, however, was a very plain and common sense one, and he thought THE EARL OF DERBY said, he thought their Lordships would without difficulty the explanation satisfactory. It was only come to the conclusion that the Standing extending the provisions of the present Orders on this subject required alteration. law. At the same time, they must take The question they had to consider concare that they did not inadvertently sanc-cerned not only railways, but affected the tion that which might inflict great injury whole financial interests of the country in on the community. workmen's trains had been started, and he thought it was only reasonable to apply it to those who took advantage of the ordinary trains with a workman's ticket. LORD EGERTON wished to know whether it was proposed to extend the principle to all the other railways. He thought that the introduction of a clause which would put aside the law of compensation as contained in Lord Campbell's Act was most tained in Lord Campbell's Act was most objectionable. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY supposed that the introduction of the clause limiting the amount of liability must be regarded as a sort of payment to the Company for the additional facilities they proposed to give to the public. LORD REDESDALE remarked that the Bill was opposed, and therefore any person objecting to its provisions might discuss the matter before the Committee. Motion agreed to: Bill read the second time. every respect. When he called attention told that he exaggerated its importance; to this subject a short time since he was but he thought that the occurrences of the last few weeks must have satisfied their Lordships, and all who took an interest in the monetary affairs of the country, that had been carried on had conduced in no the manner in which railway speculation small degree to the embarrassments in which the country had been lately involved; and he thought that the failure of many of the finance companies and banking establishments, of which they had in a great degree to the manner in which recently had so many, could be traced back they had become involved in railway speculations. The great importance of the question arose from the amount of capital affected, for the amount of capital in |