although they had been adopted to some extent, many
changes had since been introduced. Dr. Reid was then
ordered to withdraw; and alter a desultory conversation,
it was agreed that the subject should be further
considered on the following Wednesday.

On Monday, the 9th, Lord John RUSSELL moved for
leave to bring in a Bill to Extend the Right of Voting
for Members of Parliament, and to Amend the Laws
Relating to the Representation of the People. After
stating his reasons for bringing forward this measure at
the present time, and after taking a historical retrospect
of the previous measures of reform proposed, from that
of Mr. Pitt, in 1781, down to the Reform Bill of 1832,
Lord John proceeded to explain the nature and provisions
of the measure now proposed. It would be unwise
(he said) and destroy the balance of the constitution, if
the representation were confined to the counties and
large towns. He saw no reason for absolute
disfranchisement in the case of the small boroughs. It was
only proposed to disfranchise those boroughs where there
was proof of corruption, to be ascertained by means of
a commission similar to that appointed in the St. Alban's
case. It would be for the house to consider whether the
hiatus in the representation occasioned by the
disfranchisement of boroughs under such circumstances, should
not be filled up as he now proposed in the case of
Sudbury and St. Alban's, by giving the vacant seats to
populous and growing towns like Birkenhead and
Burnley. Holding that Parliament was correct in 1831,
in placing the right of voting on household suffrage at
a £10 qualification, he thought the time had come when
it might safely be lowered. He proposed to substitute
a rated value of £5 in boroughs for the existing £10
franchise. In point of numbers he calculated that the
proportion of occupiers between £5 and £10 as compared
with those of £10 and upwards, was about six to ten.
The proposed change, therefore, would add materially
to the number of voters in boroughs. He proposed to
maintain the distinction between the county and the
borough franchise established by the reform act. The
40s. freehold franchise would not be disturbed; but
with regard to the occupation franchise, he thought the
same qualification which entitled a man to sit on juries
might safely be taken as that which should give the
right to vote for members of parliament; and, accordingly,
he proposed to reduce the occupation franchise in
counties from £50 to £20 rated value; and with regard
to copyhold tenures and long leaseholds, the qualification
was to be reduced from £10 to £5. Besides these,
it was proposed to give a new right of voting
indiscriminately to persons residing either in counties or
boroughs—those residing without the limits of the
borough to vote for the county, and those within, for
the borough—that was, the right for all persons to vote
who paid direct taxes in the shape of assessed or income-
tax, to the amount of 40s. a year. Such new qualification,
however, was not to extend to persons who paid
merely for licenses. This would obviate the objection
frequently and reasonably urged, that while persons
holding freehold or leasehold property, and even mere
occupying tenants had the right of voting, a large class
of educated men, possessing property, and every
qualification for the exercise of the franchise, had not that
right. With regard to the small boroughs, he thought
on principle they should be maintained. He did not
find, although there was now an outcry against them,
that Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, or any other statesman who had
propounded or supported plans of parliamentary reform,
had ever suggested the total destruction of the small
boroughs. It was a mistake to suppose that all these
boroughs were infected with corruption more than some
of the larger constituencies. In many of them elections
were conducted with purity; but as with regard to
some, it was said with truth, that the influence of
property controlled the elections, and, as it was desirable
that that reproach should be removed, he proposed,
where such influence prevailed, to extend the
constituencies by adding neighbouring towns in the same or
the adjoining county. In bringing forward the reform
act, he had stated that no electoral borough under that
act would have less than 300 voters, and while that was
the case generally, it appeared that fourteen had less than
that number, about thirty more had less than 400, and
several others less than 500. He proposed to abide by
that standard of 500, and to add places in the neighbourhood
to those which had less, in order to make up that
number. The number of boroughs to which this
principle would apply in England and Wales would be
sixty-seven. These small boroughs (except some few in
Yorkshire) being in the southern and western counties,
were principally in agricultural districts, and the places
it was proposed to add to them being of the same
character, of course the balance of interests established by
the reform bill would be preserved, the object being not
to interfere with those interests, but to leave them as
they were. He further proposed that the property
qualification should be abolished; so that in future the
English and Irish members would in this respect be
placed on a footing of equality with those of Scotland.
Another subject he proposed to deal with in the bill—
after the necessary resolution of the house on the subject
should be passed—was the oaths taken by members. In
the new form of oath he proposed the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" should be omitted—words
which had never been introduced to confine the right of
sitting in parliament to Christians, but for a totally
different purpose. The oath he would suggest was a
simple one, which all members could take alike, merely
binding them to allegiance to the throne, and fidelity to
the succession. There would be one other clause in the
bill, in regard to members accepting offices under the
crown. At present, not only when the member first
accepted office, but when he changed office, his seat
became vacant. He did not propose to alter the law as
regarded members accepting office for the first time, but
he thought that when a member who held one office
merely changed to another, under the same administration,
there should be no necessity for a re-election;
and to this extent he proposed to effect an alteration.
With regard to Ireland it was not proposed to make any
alteration in respect, to the county franchise. But with
regard to the city and borough franchise the qualification
would be reduced from £8 to £5, it having been
found that the £8 franchise greatly restricted the
number of voters in Ireland. The very small number
on the lists of some of the boroughs had disposed
government to reconsider the question placed before
the house when the Irish bill was before it—viz..,
whether, with regard to some of those boroughs, it was
not advisable to add the neighbouring towns and thereby
secure larger and more independent constituencies.
Lord John concluded as follows—"I trust that when
this enlarged franchise is given, we shall next see the
government of this country, in whosesoever hands it be,
consider most seriously and earnestly the great question
of the education of the people. This question of the
franchise is not alien from that other one of providing
that the instruction, the education of the people, should
be in a better state than it now is. I am convinced, that
if after a measure of this kind, in another session of
parliament, this house shall consider the means of
establishing a really national system of education, they
will confer one of the greatest blessings which can be
conferred upon this country; a measure for which, I
believe, the people are now almost prepared; and
which, after further discussion, I do trust might be
carried with very nearly a general assent. I do not
propose now, however, to enter further into this subject.
I have stated the general provisions of the bill that I
propose to introduce; and I rejoice that in this
time of quiet and tranquillity we can fairly consider
that we are not acting under compulsion of any sort,
that we are not obliged by any clamour to introduce
this measure, but that we do it in the humble and
earnest hope that we may contribute something
to the power and the glory of our country."—
Mr. HUME thought the bill might do some good, but
it would not meet the expectations of the people. He
complained of the omission of the ballot and triennial
parliaments—Sir J. WALSH saw no grounds for re-
opening a question which, it was understood, had been
finally settled one-and-twenty years ago.—Sir R. INGLIS
complained that Lord John Russell had introduced
into his reform bill questions of a religious character,
such as the admission of Jews to parliament. With
regard to the extension of the suffrage, he did not dread