England had no direct concern in the business. Some
despatches relating to the subject bad arrived that afternoon,
and when properly selected and prepared would
be laid, at the discretion of the government, before the
house.

Lord John RUSSELL moved for leave to bring in
bills Further to amend the Laws relating to the
Representation of the People in England and Wales. He
began by answering the objections to bringing forward a
measure of parliamentary reform at a period like the
present. He did not think that the prospect of entering
into war was any reason why the question of improving
the representation should not be considered. He did not
look upon a war with Russia with that apprehension
which seemed to be entertained. He could not see why
provision should not be made for carrying on the war
with vigour, and the representation be considered too.
The existence of war did not prevent the consideration
of such a question in former times, as was shown in the
case of Mr. Pitt in 1792, by Mr. Grey in 1793, and by
Lord Grey in subsequent years. After describing
circumstances connected with the earlier demands for
improved representation, and enumerating the leading
measures which have been passed since 1832, Lord John
proceeded to describe the amendment which it was
proposed to make, so as to secure the better representation
of the people. He did not concur in the opinion that
there ought to be numerical equality, still he did not
think that constituencies which have fallen below a
certain level should be continued. He proposed therefore to
disfranchise all boroughs which have fallen below 300
electors, or have less than 5,000 of a population. From
33 boroughs having less than 500 electors, or a
population under 10,000, one member would be taken. Next,
he proposed to take the West Riding, which had
800,000 inhabitants, besides those of towns which were
represented, and South Lancashire, which in similar
manner had 500,000. He would divide those counties,
and give three members to each division, and would
give an additional member to each county and town
with more than 100,000 inhabitants, and these should
vote for two candidates only, so that a minority
numbering two-fifths of the constituency would be enabled
to have one representative. He should give four
additional members to Yorkshire, four to Lancashire, and
thirty-eight to other counties. There were nine
towns with more than 100,000 inhabitants, without
counting the metropolitan boroughs, which were to be
looked upon as parts of one great city; but there
would be an additional member given to Southwark.
This would in all give 55 new members. The three
towns of Birkenhead, Staleybridge, and Burnley having
more than 20,000 inhabitants, would have a member
each; and Kensington and Chelsea would, as had been
suggested, be formed into a borough with two members.
He proposed to give the franchise to the Inns of Court.
Hon. members might think they had lawyers enough—
but he thought that the return of two eminent lawyers
would be an advantage to the house. He proposed to
give one member to the University of London. It was
intended to create several franchises common to counties
and towns, namely, first, a salary of £100 for any
employment, public or private, paid half-yearly or
quarterly, and not as weekly wages. Secondly, £10
a-year dividends from the Funds, Bank Stock, or the
East India Company. Thirdly, the payment of 40s.
income-tax, or assessed taxes. Fourthly, the being a
Graduate of any University; and fifthly, the having had
for three years £50 in a savings bank. As regarded
counties and boroughs, it was not proposed to add
considerably to the number of towns sending members, but
it was proposed to admit the £10 householder to the
county franchise; but in order to avoid vote-manufacture,
the building must be rated at £5 a year, unless
the voter be a resident. Thus there would be no
running down of agriculturists or manufacturers, but all
would feel that they were sharers in the prosperity of
the country. As regarded the borough franchise, he
considered that the Reform Act did not make sufficient
provision for the admission of the working classes; and
after a tribute to these classes, for whom he thought the
door ought to be opened wider, be proposed that the
borough franchise should attend £6 municipal rating.
Moreover, the check imposed by the reform act, by the
provision that payment of rates and taxes should precede
the right of voting, was to be done away, as no longer
necessary. The register was to be made final. He
explained that the present £10 franchise would remain
as it was, except as regarded the above provision as to
buildings, and as to rates and taxes. He proposed to do
away with the freeman's franchise, after the present
interest had ceased. There would be 66 vacancies in
all; 63 new members had been apportioned, and the
other three seats would be given to populous towns in
Scotland and to a Scotch University. Lord J. Russell
then read the schedules by which these plans were to be
effected. The schedule of boroughs having less than
300 electors, or less than 5000 inhabitants, which he
proposed to disfranchise, was as follows:—Andover,
returning 2 Members; Arundel, 1; Ashburton, 1;
Calne, 1; Dartmouth, 1; Evesham, 2; Harwich, 2;
Honiton, 2; Knaresborough, 2; Lyme Regis, 1;
Marlborough, 2; Midhurst, 1; Northallerton, 1; Reigate,
1; Richmond (Yorkshire), 2; Thetford, 2; Totnes, 2;
Wells, 2; Wilton, 1.—Total, 19 boroughs, returning
29 members. The second table was a list of boroughs
having less than 500 electors, or less than 10,000 inhabitants,
and which would be deprived of one member
each:—Bodmin, Bridgnorth, Bridport, Buckingham,
Chichester, Chippenham, Cirencester, Cockermouth,
Devizes, Dorchester, Guilford, Hertford, Huntington,
Leominster, Lewes, Ludlow, Lymington, Lichfield,
Maldon, Malton, Marlow (Great), Newport (Isle of
Wight), Peterborough, Poole, Ripon, Stamford,
Tamworth, Tavistock, Tewkesbury, Tiverton, Weymouth,
Windsor, Wycombe (Chipping). Total, 33 members.
The next table contained the counties and divisions of
counties having a population of more than 100,000, and
considered by government to call for three members
each:—Bedford; Chester, southern division; ditto,
northern; Cornwall, western; ditto, eastern; Derby,
northern; oitto, southern; Devon, southern; ditto,
northern; Durham, northern; ditto, southern; Essex,
southern; ditto, northern; Gloucester, western; Kent,
western; ditto, eastern; Lancaster, northern; Lincoln,
parts of Lindsey; ditto, parts of Kesteven and Holland;
Middlesex; Monmouth; Norfolk, western; ditto,
eastern; Stafford, northern; ditto, southern; Somerset,
western; ditto, eastern; Salop, northern; Southampton,
northern; Suffolk, eastern; ditto, western; Surrey,
eastern; Sussex, eastern; Warwick, northern;
Worcester, eastern; York, east riding; ditto, northern.
Wales: Glamorgan, 1. Additional members, 38. Lord
John concluded by moving for leave to bring in the
bills. A conversational discussion ensued, in which
many members took part, and leave was given to bring
in the bills.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, Mr. Locke KING moved for leave
to bring in a bill to Amend the Law of Succession to Real
Property in cases of intestacy. The object of the bill was
to apply to real property the same rule of succession as now
applied to personal property.—Mr. HADFIELD seconded
the motion.—Mr. BRIGHT supported the bill, which
he viewed as but a small instalment of what ought to be
done in the same direction.—Lord J. RUSSELL said he
would not oppose the bringing in of the bill, but
would reserve himself as to the course he might think
it right to pursue on its future stages.—Leave was then
given to bring in the bill.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE, in moving for leave to bring
in a bill for the Appointment of Public Prosecutors,
urged the abuses attending the present system, and
mentioned two instances illustrative, as he stated, of the
scandalous state of the existing law. The object of the
bill was to withdraw from private animosity, caprice,
and even revenge, what ought to be left in the hands
of justice, administered by a public officer. He
proposed, therefore, that public prosecutors should be
appointed by the crown for certain circuits, with
district agents to conduct the proceedings before the
magistrates, and that it should be in the power of
any prisoner to give to the public prosecutor a list of
witnesses who could speak to facts in his defence,
and that upon the judge certifying that those witnesses
were proper to be called, their expenses should be
allowed.—Mr. HUME supported the motion.—The