DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16879#0005
VOLUME LII.
IntrffkctioiL
JANUARY TO JUNE, 1867.
«
THE DERBY CABINET.—1867.
First Lord, of tire Treasury .
Lord Chancellor .
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lord President of the Council .
Lord Privy Seal ....
Home Office .....
Foreign Office ....
Colonial Office ....
War Secretary ....
India Secretary ....
Admiralty ....
President of the Board of Trade
President of the Poor Law Board
First Commissioner of Public Works
Chief Secretary of Ireland .
Earl of Derby.
Lord Chelmsford.
Right IIoh. B. Disraeli.
Duke of Buckingham (and Duke of Marlborough).
Earl of Malmesbury.
Right PIon. Spencer H. Walpole (and Right Hon.
Gathorne Hardy).
Lord Stanley (now Earl of Derby).
Earl of Carnarvon (and Duke of Buckingham).
General Peel (and Sir John S. Pakington, Bart.).
Viscount Cranborne (and Sir Stafford H. North-
cote, Bart.).
Sir John S. Pakington, Bart, (and Right Hon.
H. T. Corry).
Sir Stafford H. Northcote, Bart, (and Duke of
Richmond).
Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy (and Earl of Devon).
Lord John Manners.
Lord Naas (afterwards Earl of Mayo).
POLITICAL SUMMAEY.
PACK
PARLIAMENT was opened by the Queen in person on
the 5th of February, and all doubts as to whether
the Derby Ministry would introduce a Reform Bill were at
once set at rest by the declaration, in the Royal Speech, that
the attention of Parliament would “ again be called to the
state of the representation of the people.” The question of
Reform, therefore, as was the case last year, again occupied
most of the Session, but with this essential difference in the
result, that the Bill of 1867, more fortunate than its imme-
diate predecessor, passed into law, but not before it had gone
through many vicissitudes. As it is under this law that
the Parliamentary franchise is now exercised, there seems
good reason for relating the history of the measure (mainly
condensed from the Annual Register) at some length.
On the 11th of February the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Disraeli) announced the intention of the
Government to deal in the first instance with the question
of Reform by a series of resolutions preparatory to the
introduction of a Bill, comprehending the two main ques-
tions—the alteration of the Franchise, and the Redistribu-
tion of Seats. These resolutions (see “Essence of Parlia-
ment,” p. 74) when made public were not received with
much favour, and it was not until the 25th that Mr.
Disraeli explained what would be their practical outcome.
He proposed to create certain new franchises (“fancy”
franchises), to make a £6 rating franchise for boroughs, and
to reduce the occupation franchise in counties from £50 to
£20; to disfranchise certain corrupt boroughs, and transfer
their seats to towns which had risen into importance since
1832 ; to give a member to the University of London, and
additional members to the Tower Hamlets, and certain
PAG®
English Counties; and in order to provide for these new
seats without increasing the existing numbers of the House
to take away one member from sundry small boroughs,
having a population under 7,000.
The question of proceeding by resolutions was speedily
settled by the Government withdrawing them, seeing the
opposition they encountered, and undertaking at once to
bring in a Bill. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not able to do this so soon as he had intended, in conse-
quence of three of his colleagues, the Earl of Carnar-
von, Lord Cranborne, and General Peel, resigning
office through a difference of opinion with the rest of the
Cabinet on the subject of the Bill. The delays consequent
on these resignations, and the changes they necessarily led
to in the composition of the Government, caused the intro-
duction of the Bill to be postponed to the 18th of March,
when it was found to differ materially from the measure
] which the Resolutions had foreshadowed, inasmuch as it
was now proposed to admit every borough householder,
paying rates and having resided two years, to the franchise,
and to give every facility to compound householders to take
upon themselves the payment of their own rates, and so
obtain the right to vote. The County franchise was further
lowered to £15 rating.
After a speech from Mr. Disraeli, in which he intimated
pretty plainly the readiness of the Government to consent to
some important modifications of their scheme, the Bill was
read a second time towards the end of March. The first of
these concessions subsequently proved to be the abandon-
ment of the “ dual vote.” Then followed considerable dis-
cussion about that much-talked-of person, the “ Compound
IntrffkctioiL
JANUARY TO JUNE, 1867.
«
THE DERBY CABINET.—1867.
First Lord, of tire Treasury .
Lord Chancellor .
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Lord President of the Council .
Lord Privy Seal ....
Home Office .....
Foreign Office ....
Colonial Office ....
War Secretary ....
India Secretary ....
Admiralty ....
President of the Board of Trade
President of the Poor Law Board
First Commissioner of Public Works
Chief Secretary of Ireland .
Earl of Derby.
Lord Chelmsford.
Right IIoh. B. Disraeli.
Duke of Buckingham (and Duke of Marlborough).
Earl of Malmesbury.
Right PIon. Spencer H. Walpole (and Right Hon.
Gathorne Hardy).
Lord Stanley (now Earl of Derby).
Earl of Carnarvon (and Duke of Buckingham).
General Peel (and Sir John S. Pakington, Bart.).
Viscount Cranborne (and Sir Stafford H. North-
cote, Bart.).
Sir John S. Pakington, Bart, (and Right Hon.
H. T. Corry).
Sir Stafford H. Northcote, Bart, (and Duke of
Richmond).
Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy (and Earl of Devon).
Lord John Manners.
Lord Naas (afterwards Earl of Mayo).
POLITICAL SUMMAEY.
PACK
PARLIAMENT was opened by the Queen in person on
the 5th of February, and all doubts as to whether
the Derby Ministry would introduce a Reform Bill were at
once set at rest by the declaration, in the Royal Speech, that
the attention of Parliament would “ again be called to the
state of the representation of the people.” The question of
Reform, therefore, as was the case last year, again occupied
most of the Session, but with this essential difference in the
result, that the Bill of 1867, more fortunate than its imme-
diate predecessor, passed into law, but not before it had gone
through many vicissitudes. As it is under this law that
the Parliamentary franchise is now exercised, there seems
good reason for relating the history of the measure (mainly
condensed from the Annual Register) at some length.
On the 11th of February the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer (Mr. Disraeli) announced the intention of the
Government to deal in the first instance with the question
of Reform by a series of resolutions preparatory to the
introduction of a Bill, comprehending the two main ques-
tions—the alteration of the Franchise, and the Redistribu-
tion of Seats. These resolutions (see “Essence of Parlia-
ment,” p. 74) when made public were not received with
much favour, and it was not until the 25th that Mr.
Disraeli explained what would be their practical outcome.
He proposed to create certain new franchises (“fancy”
franchises), to make a £6 rating franchise for boroughs, and
to reduce the occupation franchise in counties from £50 to
£20; to disfranchise certain corrupt boroughs, and transfer
their seats to towns which had risen into importance since
1832 ; to give a member to the University of London, and
additional members to the Tower Hamlets, and certain
PAG®
English Counties; and in order to provide for these new
seats without increasing the existing numbers of the House
to take away one member from sundry small boroughs,
having a population under 7,000.
The question of proceeding by resolutions was speedily
settled by the Government withdrawing them, seeing the
opposition they encountered, and undertaking at once to
bring in a Bill. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not able to do this so soon as he had intended, in conse-
quence of three of his colleagues, the Earl of Carnar-
von, Lord Cranborne, and General Peel, resigning
office through a difference of opinion with the rest of the
Cabinet on the subject of the Bill. The delays consequent
on these resignations, and the changes they necessarily led
to in the composition of the Government, caused the intro-
duction of the Bill to be postponed to the 18th of March,
when it was found to differ materially from the measure
] which the Resolutions had foreshadowed, inasmuch as it
was now proposed to admit every borough householder,
paying rates and having resided two years, to the franchise,
and to give every facility to compound householders to take
upon themselves the payment of their own rates, and so
obtain the right to vote. The County franchise was further
lowered to £15 rating.
After a speech from Mr. Disraeli, in which he intimated
pretty plainly the readiness of the Government to consent to
some important modifications of their scheme, the Bill was
read a second time towards the end of March. The first of
these concessions subsequently proved to be the abandon-
ment of the “ dual vote.” Then followed considerable dis-
cussion about that much-talked-of person, the “ Compound