Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’ bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been re-introduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into consideration.
MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.
On the 15th of February Mr. Grote made his annual motion for the ballot. The debate at this time was expected with considerable interest, because it was generally understood to be a question which was becoming an element of disunion in the camp of the reformers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ward, and supported by Mr. E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Ward, in seconding the motion, intimated that after Lord John Russell’s declaration respecting the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and the duration of parliaments, the people were anxious to see how far the other members of the administration were prepared to identify their opinions with those of the noble lord. He represented the constituents of Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir Henry Parnell as especially watching their conduct in this matter, and concluded by expressing his conviction that anything like a government opposition to the measure would “have for its effect the production of a new combination most important to the country and to that house.” Lord John Russell again manfully stated his general objections to the change; and Sir Robert Peel, in a speech of considerable power, attacked the system of secret voting with effect. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and fifteen against one hundred and ninety-eight.
PARLIAMENTARY QUALIFICATION BILL.
During this session a bill was introduced and passed, which had for its object the extension to personal property of the privilege hitherto confined to real property, as regarded a qualification for parliament. By this act, an estate for life, or for the life of another; or a term of years of which thirteen shall be unexpired at the time of election, or personal estate and effects of any description within the United Kingdom, or the interest or dividends of such, may constitute either the whole or part of the sum required to qualify a member. By another clause, every member before he takes his seat is required to deliver to the clerk, while the house is sitting, a paper signed by himself, containing a statement of the real or personal property whereby he makes out his qualification. By the same clause he is also called upon to subscribe a declaration, that to the best of his belief he is duly qualified to be elected a member of the house. To make a false declaration is declared to be a misdeameanour, and the election becomes void if the member sits or votes without complying with the provisions of the acts. This statute, however, does not extend to the members for the universities, to the eldest sons of peers, or to persons qualified to be knight of the shire.
PERSONAL ATTACKS.
On the 6th of March Sir William Molesworth, with a view of bringing the whole colonial administration of the empire before the consideration of the house of commons, moved that an address be presented to her majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of the house, that in the present critical state of many of her majesty’s foreign possessions, the colonial minister should be a person in whose diligence, activity, and firmness the house and the public may be able to place reliance; and declaring that her majesty’s present secretary of state for the colonies does not enjoy the confidence of the house or the country. The right honourable baronet prefaced his motion by a speech of two hours’ duration. His speech was very moderate, although it might have appeared that he was guided by some acrimonious feeling in selecting Lord Glenelg for attack. Mr. Leader seconded the motion; and Lord Palmerston undertook the defence of the colonial secretary. He would meet the motion by a simple negative. Lord Sandon said that he had expected that the affairs of Canada would have formed the basis of the present motion. Lord Palmerston was right in saying that it should not have been directed against Lord Glenelg alone, but against the entire administration. He could not vote with Sir William Molesworth; nor could he be content with a simple negative of his motion. He considered that the troubles in Canada were attributable to the misconduct of ministers; and under these circumstances he should move an amendment, in the shape of an address to the queen, in which would be laid down his own principles, and those of the party with whom he acted. His lordship’s address expressed the regret of the house at the treasonable movements in Canada, and their determination to aid her in the suppression of the revolt, and the establishment of a sound constitution; but representing also their opinion, that the present state of things in that colony was mainly owing to the want of foresight and energy, and to the ambiguous, dilatory, and irresolute course of her majesty’s ministers. Lord Stanley then addressed the house, and after a speech from Sir Charles Grey the house adjourned; and on the following evening the debate was renewed, many members expressing their opinions on the subject. In the course of his speech Lord John Russell directed some bitter remarks against Lord Stanley, and said that in respect of temper and judgment he was more comfortable now that Lord Glenelg was his colleague than he was when the former nobleman was at the head of the colonial department. His lordship demanded to know whether in the event of the resignation of ministers, there existed means of forming a better administration, or whether the tories could safely appeal to the test of a popular election? Lord John Russell concluded by suggesting to Sir William Molesworth the expediency of withdrawing his motion, in order that the house might divide upon the amendment. The right honourable baronet consented to this; but said that, for his own part, he felt precluded from voting on either side on the amendment of Lord Sandon. On a division ministers had a majority of twenty-nine only; the numbers being, against the amendment, three hundred and sixteen; for it, two hundred and eighty-seven.