and tarnish the reputation of the country. This sentiment was so general, that, three days afterwards, ministers gave up this part of their plan, and stated, that they should retain, in lieu of it, the duties upon tobacco and glass. The proposed tax upon steam navigation was also abandoned; and when that upon timber came under consideration in committee, ministers were left in a minority of forty-six, the numbers being 236 against 190, on the division. The equalization of the wine duties, and the tax upon cotton wool, were also resisted with so much vigour, both in and out of parliament, that the financial scheme was completely broken up, and no other substituted in its stead during the session.

On the first of March, Lord John Russell brought forward the important measure of parliamentary reform. After some observations on the policy and expediency of bringing the state of the representation under revision, the noble lord proceeded to explain the nature of the plan which his Majesty's government had agreed in proposing to the House of Commons on this subject.

"The principal grievances, he said, of which the people complained were three: first, the nomination of candidates by individuals; secondly, election by close corporations; and, thirdly, electioneering expenses. With regard to the first, where it was found that boroughs contained but few inhabitants, and where the elective franchise was only a means of enabling individuals to send representatives to that house, it would be right to deprive those persons of that power, by taking away the franchise from such borough. It was, therefore, proposed that every borough whose population did not amount to two thousand, according to the census of 1821, should be deprived of the privilege of sending representatives to parliament, which measure would disfranchise sixty boroughs. Of forty-seven

boroughs, the population of which was only four thousand each, it was proposed that they should send only one member. Weymouth, which now sent four, would in future send but two. The general result would be-the disfranchisement of the sixty boroughs would take away 119 members, which, with those

taken from the forty-seven boroughs, and the two from Weymouth, would give a total of 168 members deprived of seats. The mode of extending the elective franchise was proposed to be as follows: every householder, rated at £10 a year, to possess the right of voting; persons at present possessing that right, not to be deprived of it, provided they actually resided in the borough. With regard to non-residents, they were at present the cause of so much expense and bribery, that it was not deemed expedient they should retain the privilege. With respect to the elective franchise for counties, it was proposed that copyholders, possessing property rated at £10 a year, as well as persons holding leases of the yearly value of £50, and to the extent of twenty-one years, should be entitled to a vote. This plan would cause a reduction of 168 members of that house; but it was not intended to fill up all the vacancies thus created. It was proposed that seven towns now unrepresented, namely, Manchester and Salford-Birmingham and Ashtead-Leeds-Greenwich, Deptford, and Woolwich-Wolverhampton, Bilston, and Sedgeley-Sheffield-and Sunderland, and the two Wearmouths-should each return two members. It was also proposed that twenty other towns, of inferior importance, should each send one member to parliament. There was a great portion of the metropolis, the inhabitants of which, eight or nine hundred thousand, were wholly unrepresented; it was, therefore, proposed to give them the right of electing eight members. It was also proposed to make an addition of two members each to twenty-seven of the larger counties, containing not less than 150,000 inhabitants. It was also intended to give an additional member to the Isle of Wight. The noble lord then proceeded to notice the present imperfect mode of voting at elections. In order to remedy the existing evils, it was proposed that all the electors for boroughs, cities, and towns, should be registered; the list to be placed on the church-door, and at a certain period of the year, the returning officer of the borough to hold a court, and hear the claims of those persons whose votes were called in question. He should then publish this list, which was to become the election roll for the ensuing year. It was next intended to limit the duration of the poll to two days; and hopes were entertained, that in time the most populous boroughs would be polled in one day. The noble mover then brought under consideration the mode in which it was proposed to take the sense of the counties with regard to the election of members. It was suggested, that the churchwardens should make out lists of persons entitled to vote, and affix the same to the church door, and that a person should be appointed by the judges of assize,

to make a circuit through the whole county once a year, to settle the rights of voters. The list, when completed, to be transmitted to the clerk of the peace for enrolment, and to constitute the electors of the following year. To obviate the great expense incurred by county elections, it was proposed that the poll should be taken in separate districts, to be decided at the quarter-sessions, and that the arrangement should undergo no change for the space of two years. It was intended that the poll should last three days, and that on the sixth day the sheriff should declare on whom the election had fallen. The districts were to be dispersed over the whole of the counties, so that no elector would have to go more than fifteen miles to tender his vote. To arrange these districts, commissioners of the privy council were to be named by his Majesty, to see that the business was properly done; and who were also to be empowered, when the number of electors by the proposed regulations should be too small in any borough, to make an addition from the adjoining parishes. These commissioners would be required to report their proceedings to his Majesty in council, who would cause public proclamation to be made of the mode in which the divisions of the counties had been effected, and how the deficiency in electors for boroughs had been supplied. The noble lord stated, that, according to the present plan, the man who acquired a vote for any city, town, or borough, would not have a right to vote also for the county. At the same time, it was not intended to interfere with the freeholders, government being aware that even the forty shilling freeholders were well qualified to exercise the elective franchise, and that it was by enabling small proprietors to vote, that they should give that extended basis to the representation which it was desirable that it should possess. His lordship then read a list of the boroughs to be disfranchised; and next, of those which were to be reduced to one member.

With regard to Wales, it was intended to unite different places, and to create a new district of boroughs, to return together one member additional for the principality.

On the state of Scotland, his lordship said, that the qualification to vote for counties would be, the ownership of land or houses worth £10 a year, or holding as tenant at the annual value of £50, on lease for 19 years or upwards; for burghs, the occupancy of a dwelling-house of £10 per annum.

In regard to Ireland, it was proposed, that occupancy to the amount of £10 per annum should give a right to vote for the boroughs; and that Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford, owing to their increasing prosperity, should each return an additional member.

The noble lord concluded with stating, that though, instead of 658 members, of which the House of Commons now consisted, the total number would hereafter be 596; yet there would be at least 500,000 persons added to the number of those who now exercised the elective franchise.

The motion, having been seconded, was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis, member for the university of Oxford, who contended that the plan meant revolution, and not reform.

The debate was then continued by repeated adjournments from day to day; during which, the whole strength of the house was brought into action upon the question, till the 9th, when leave was given to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales. Leave was also given to bring in bills to amend the representation of Scotland and Ireland.

On the 14th, the first bill was brought in, and read; when the noble mover said, that some few alterations had been since made in one or two instances, by joining certain large suburbs with the adjacent towns.

On the 21st, the second reading of the bill was moved, when Sir Richard Vyvyán, one of the members for Cornwall, concluded a long and able speech with moving as an amendment, that it should be read that day six months. A warm debate ensued, and the question was adjourned till the following day, when several members having delivered their opinions, Lord John Russell, at a late hour, defended the bill, and replied at great length to the arguments by which it had been assailed. The house then divided, when there appeared for the amendment, 301-against it, 302; leaving the victor with the majority of one only-which in all ordinary cases would have been accounted a defeat, yet, on this momentous