The Express. — London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

7 1 ' 1111 ' . '" Il THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 28, ( Continued front page 3.1 modified according to the vicissitudes and cirournstances of the country. Yet, notwithstanding, the original scheme of the Plantagenet' which constituted thaw, of the pro prietors of laud, of burgesses, and of skilled artisans, has remained to this day. (Hear, bear.) These are the elements which I wish to foster, and if neomeary, to increase, but I wish to retain the original character of the constitution, and I wish to legislate in the spirit of the constitution, not departing from the genius of the original scheme. (Hear, hear.) The elements of the estate of the Commons must be numerous and ample on an age like this, but above all they must be choice. They must be numerous enough to be independent, and select enough to be responsible. (Hear, hear.) We in this house represent not an indiscriminate multi tude, but a body of men endowed with privileges which they enjoy,but also invested with duties which they are boubou ndto per form. (Cheers.) We hid to consider this question in 1&58 and 1859, and to discover if we could what portn io of the skilled artisans, following out the scheme of the Plantage net', was proper to admit within the pale of the constitu tion. We found upon inquiry that the number who at that time were admitted was about an eighth of the whole, which did not seem to us to be enough. We therefore bad to consider whether a proper representation of the working classes could be made by a reduction of the borough franohiee. We believed that it would be most dangerous to reduce the borough franchise, but we endeavoured to obtain the same result by other means. We calculated that by means which we suggested, and which have been partly adopted by the government, we should have doubled the amount of the constituencies. The house knows what was the fortune of these efforts of ours. But I do not wish to dwell upon that subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secre• tory of State taunted me that, because in 1859 I had ex pressed a willin,gness on the part of the government to re duce the borough franchise, if necessary, I was inconsistent. There is no inconsistency in that, because after we appealed to the country, and when it was difficult to know where the majority lay, we felt bound not to desert the subject. But has nothing happened since 1859? Why, seven years—and with regard to this question seven of the most remarkable peers—that ever happened in the history of England have happened—(bear, hear)—because though the working classes, full of business, prosperous and contented, may not have studied the ohms tion of representation, or the principles on which it should be founded, the intellect of England, the thought of the most cultivated and the most enlightened cheeses of the country, intensely studied the principles of representation, and considered those questions which hitherto have baffled statesmen. I do not give it as my opinion, but I give it as my observa tion of the public ju.4nient of this country, that the oph j nian of the cultivated and thoughtful, the impartial and responsible, though desirous that the chosen members of the working classes should form part, and no unimportant part, of the estate of the Commons, recmileal from obtaining that end by a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise. (Hear. hear.) That I believe to have been the opinion of the intelligent portico of the country. No one contributed more to fonn that opinion than the hon. member for Westminster. (Loud deers.) I confess J listened to his speech the other night with surprise, be cause I did not think it was consistent with his writings on this subject, and with those opinions of his which have most influenced the convictions of society. (Hear, hear.) I do not refer to his writings of 25 years ago, but the latest edition of his last book—written since 1859, and after the failure of Earl Itosaell, when his mind was full of these events. As I understand the purport of his writings, the lion. gentleman is in fo your of a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the fran chise, even to an unlimited extent. But though in favour of that extension he qualified it with conditions of a cha racter that probably might induce every member of this: house to support his propositions, namely, the representa tion of minorities and plurality of voting. (Laughter.) But we did not bear anything of the representation of mi norities or of plurality of votes in the speech of the hoe, gentleman the other evening, and, therefore, I think he has not been consistent with himself. The first principle of the hon. gentleman is that the vote should not be confined to the dark sex—(laughter)— and that women had as much right to vote as men, and I do not know that be is not right in regard to a country where women hold manorial courts, and sometimes elect churchwardens. (Laughter.) There is :mother condition of universal suffrage, proposed by the hon. member for Westminster, to which I call the spacial attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, atal that is that no man should exercise the suffrage who did not pay taxes. (Hear, bier.) That is an excellent provision. I know it will be said that all men pay taxes who consume tea, sugar, and tobacco. (Hear.) But the hon. member for Westminster did not refer to indirect but to direct taxation. (Hear.) Indirect taxation is, in the opinion of the hon. member for Westminster, no security for the prudence of individuals, or of their fitness to possess the vote. You must, he says, have a direct tax. (Hear.) That seems to be a difficulty. I have immense confidence in philoaophers. I knew the difficulty would be solved. Statesmen and politicians are to aril race who have nrthia; but experience to guide them. (Laughter.) But a philoeopher is an exuberant an imoginative being, and accordingly we find the honounitle member ready with an admirable expedient. It is a poll tax. (Hear. hear.) Every 1113.11 is to be subject to direct taxation, and it is to be collected by means of a poll tax. It is a great thing to have, is future, and now we know what the future will be. If the philosophic cabinet, which I understand in in contemplation, should take its place on that bench, we shall have a poll tax for Englual as a measure of li-iance, and we know that there are other measures in ti e same armoury. We are to have cornaiilaory education mid compulsory cleanliness. ILiughtai.) The scheme will be the admiration of cosmopolitan Era„).'-, but I fear that before nine months the whole coontry will be in a state of insurrection. (Hein, hear.) There is one point of primary importance which might not to be avoided in this debate. I have stated my view as to the positon of the working I classes with reference to other toeialora of the constituency. I wish them to take their proper place is the Commons, sod to have an adequate share in the Ere. .t privileges of j their order. But what is the number of that class j already enjoying the franchise: That is a subject I uimn which a great deal of r - ystery exists, and which seems to have startled everybody—no body more than ministers :La a.selven, and it is a subject upon which we should hay- correct information before we proceed with this hill. (Hear, hear.) I want tap have further information respecting e important fact. Y.'a used to be told that before thy Kef.irm Bill all the freemen were working men, freen co and scot and lot voters ; but it now turns out that ..t no jariod were the working nien in the majority. The free....en and scot and lot voters, it appears, belonged to various classes of society, and included many of the gentry. We have a return of the number of freemen at the ; , resent moment. At present there are 50,478 scot anal lot voters, of v 'mom 2'4,000 belong to the wrirkine; dos, or 45 per cent. At the time of the Itcform Bill the num bers were 108,000 and 48,000, anal the freemen 1;1,000 to 106,000, and workiiig men altogether were estimated at 1-12th. I think it was 1-9th. The working men in the franchise have, I calculate, increased 9) per cent. since the Reform Bill. At ;•-'-sent the rate of it crease is 10,000 a year, and in ten the working Medlin the franchise will be 180,000 ;again 400,9larlsorough voters nr one-third of the borough popultt lan. Now I think one tit int would be a rather fair proportion, hit the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is one-fourth. while as regards the boroughs and counties together it c one-seventh. I think, however, that to put the 's( oniglis and counties thus together is a fallacy. and that if you want to show the amount of the working classes ir. the borough constitu encies, you must take it in the borough constituencies alone, otherwise you will have the result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer SO much aleprecono. ti...t of giving them too great a predominance. (In this point we have not suffi cient information, but we have somethiag at which the house will be startled. The Chancialor of the Exchequer thought that the working classes haul little or no electoral position in the country. I thought so too, but I do not think so now. Look at the effect of the land societies. (Hear, hear.) In Eavka and Hertfordshire in which, when I was first inonounted with them, there was not a single working ::.an voter, more than one-sixth of the constit 1,- - ,cy are now work irg men. Here is a 'tats-oeat which was forwarded to me by one of the best authorities in York• shire. He dosses the voters in his township in four classes--upper class, middle class. lower middle class, and working class, of men living on wages leas than 30s. a week. Ile says thot in hie township these are four voters of the upper class, 12 of the middle china 24 of the lower noddle class, and .10 of the working class. He says further, and speaking from as intimate know ledge of the whole of the West (hiding, that in it there are upwards of 15.000 woe king men enjoying the franchise—(hear, hear)—men livii.g epon wages and en joying the suffrage in the West The hon. member for Birmingham says " No," but he may digest the state ment at his leisure. Here is anoths r scion from a con servative agent. He says there are .nore 40s. freeholders iii South Derbyshire than there are voters on the large estates and small holdings put toget 'ler. This shows what is the condition of the working choses at this moment. Have they or have they not their fair proportion of the setae of the Commons 7 I say I hive ehown you that which ought to make you hesitate, that yoo ought to in q :ire, that you should paose. that you simala endeavour to obtain accurate information, hut, above all, that what ever proposition you make, you %tumid legislate in the spirit of the English constitution—lhear, hear)—that this house, whatever you do, should re ,ihin a House of Com mon, and not a house of the people - (hear, hear)—not the house d an indiscriminate multitude which no one can attsch a definite idea to, which is not responsible to society, 11•:d which has no specified duties or proileges given to it by the constitution. (Hear., What we ought to do into act In the spirit of the constitution in settling this matter. We are asked not to act in the spirit of the constitution. We are asked to act in the spirit of the American constitution. (Cheers.) Now lam no decrier of American institutions, an members know who recollect what I have said upon the subject. I approve of American institutions, for the mason that they are adapted to the country in which they flourish. I see none of those conditions existing in this coontry which exist in America, and which have mule those institutions flourish. If I could see a rest body of intelligent men here in possession of an immense expanse of cultivated land, bounded by andlimitable district, where men may soon become wealthy landowners, then I say I see a state of men to whom Buy be entrusted the gravity and responsibility of sovereign power ; but what I understand to be the blot of the American political system, is not essential to it, but accidental—it is those turbulent and demoralised mobs that exist in the cities of their coasts. But if we were to introduce those institutions into England we would not have that which is excellent in the American institutions, but that which is not essential to it. and which is its most disgraceful and demoralising accident. You would have the rule of mobs the rale of great towns, the domination of multitudes. (Cheers.) Or if they were to succeed in their avowed object, and were to obtain the land in England, as in America, that could only be after a long struggle , in which all the elements of our great civilisation must dis appear ; our capital, and our credit—more wonderful than our capital ' • and when they had got the land it woul d be only a very limited area, so that from a first-rate kingdom we should become a third-rate republic. (Cheers.) I say, therefore, I am entirely opposed to the American prmaiplea, and I regret to see that they are advocated in this house by persona of very great influence. The member for Montrose deprecated any allusion to the member for Bir mingham. Well, that is a very convenient arrangement. (Laughter, and " Hear, hear.") It is very convenient to Make speeches in two places, and not to be answered in either of them. (Hear.) lam not one of those who de preciate the talents or the character of the hon. member for Birmingham. I admire his great abilities ; I listen to his eloquence often with delight ; and I recognise his unexampled energy ; but I regret that such gifts as he possesses should be exercised I am sure conscientiously—in favour of principles which if successful I believe will be fatal to this country. (Cheers.) It is very disagreeable to me t as it must be to any gentleman, in oar debates to be arguing with or com menting upon the conduct or words of an individual mem ber. I feel the embarrassment and pain of the poaition. But it is not my fault. If the hon. member for Birming ham was in his right place this would not occur. (Cheers and laughter.) I have to make remarks upon gentlemen opposite, and they have to make remarks upon tie. But it is the policy of the government we oppose, and it is the manoeuvres of the opposition which they expose. (" Hear," and a laugh.) There is nothing painful in dealing with a corporation; it softens the necessary asperity which sometimes must occur in our political contests. (A laugh.) U the hon. member for Birmingham were seated on the Treasury bench, as he ought to be seated— (loud cheers and laughter)—we should not hear the hon. member for Birmingham any longer, but her Majesty's ministers, and therefore I am bound to say, that disagreeable as it is to me, if the hon member for Birmingham, who now avowedly dictates the policy of this country, is not in the pos ition in which he ought to be, I must be permitted to comment upon the conduct, sayings, and doings of so eminent an individual. (Cheers.) Some of my friends have spoken with indignation of the manifesto which the hon. member thought fit to publish when the house separated. (Hear, hear.) My feeling when I read his letter was not indignation nor contempt— nothing of the kind ; it wee a feeling of pain, mortifica tion, and disappointment. I felt that I had totally mis apprehended the character of the individual with whom I bad so long been placed in communication, and which I thought at least was dignified. I thought, for example, that the hon. member for Birmingham was proud of being a member of the House of Commons, and I con fess myself that I saw sometimes, not without satisfaction, that the house seemed not di sinclined to be proud of him. (Hear, hear.) But when he held us up to public obloquy, that was not, to my mind, a cause of indigna tion, but of deep regret and pity. (Cheers.) He was the lest man—knowing what I know of him in this house — that I should have supposed would have held up the House of Commons to public reprobation. (Cheers.) It is not for me to vindicate the Howe of Commons—that is not my proud position, it is the privilege of another person. (Loud lauugghter and cheers.) I must say it was a source of utcmishment to me that the Trader of the House of Common', who must have been in that part of the country at the time—l don't know whether he was at the same meeting, but with no lack of opportunity—who was attending dinners and making speeches in theatres and amphitheatres—(cheers)-1 say it was a subject of astonishment to me that he should not have coins forward and noticed that address, tSat he should not have vindicated the honour and cha racter of that assembly of which it ought to be his greatest pride to be the leader.--(loud cheers)—he who is the champion of our honour and our privileges. (Hear, hear.) These were not hurried words, and he had not the excuse of excited oratory, but they were penned with malice prepense. The right 'honourable gentle man could find time at one of those dinners, given to him by the financial reformers of Liverpool— (no, no)--well, attended by . one of the moat distin guished of those provincial fanatics—(opposition cheers)—he could find tune to criticise the comparatively insignificant letter of the right hon. member for Calne—that was the staple of one of his speeches ; but he could not find time to comment upon the letter of the hon. member for Birmingham, although it was an attack upon the honour and the character of those of whom he is the leader, and of the house of which he ought to be proud to be the chief champion. (Cheers and counter cheers.) But, sir, although I have not the honour to be the leader of the House of Commons—although that proud position is not mine— I am, at least, by the favour and indulgence of my friends the leader of the tory party. (Cheery.) I there fore take this the earliest opportunity of telling the hon. member for Birmingham that the attack that be has made upon the tory party is one which he cannot substantiate in fact, and which would convey to the country an impression that it is impossible for hint to demonstrate by any reference to anything that has occurred. (Opposition cheers.) The hon. gentleman has said that the tory party were only anxious to plunge this country into war to divert it from that domestic progress and public concord to which he has devoted all his energies. I want to know from the hon. member what grounds he has for making that assertion. (Cheers.) We have heard from the C ha ncellor of the Exchequer enough during the recess of the last 30 years. I have been in this house for nearly those 30 years, and I believe the hon. member for Birmingham had sat himself more than two-thinla of that time in this house, and therefore he has had some experienoe in public affairs, or at le :tat in our deliberations has taken an eminent part. (Hear, hear.) What war have we plunged the country into in that time? (Cheers.) There was the Crimean war. Were the tories the authors of that war? (('heers.) They might have carried it on 11 a different mode, but they were not the authors of the Crimean war. When he charges us with this great offence against the pros perity and fortunes of the realm, has hcforgotten theta man who I suppose he still reveres rose in that very place where the hon. member now sits, and declared before God that he believed that if Lord Derby's government had not been turned out in 1852 the Crimean war would not have occurred! (Loud opposition cheers.) Those words were uttered in this house by Mr. Cobden. There was another war. Did we take advantage of the Italian war to piunae this country into it Is it nat upon reaord, although those records were not published until the delusive amendment which turned us out of °thee was passed—is it not upon record that every fair means was used by this country to prevent that war— (hear. hear)—and that nothing but the headstrong conduct of Austria caused it Then, I repeat, what reason has the honourable member to say that the tories are always anxious to plunge this country into war to divert attention from progress and reform ? There lus been another war in Europe during the last thirty years—a war between Denmark and Germany. Did we want to plunge the country into war on that sub ject ? (Cheers.) Is it not notorious, and cannot it be roved bydocuinenta on this table, that both the late Prime inister of England and the present Prime Minister of England did wish to plunge us into that war? (Opposition cheering.) Are not the despatches in existence inviting France to join England in going to war! (Hear, hear.) Indeed, nothing but that policy could justify the promises they held out to betrayed Denmark. And who prevented that war? They resolved to wait until the meet in; of parliament to decide on their policy and to control their rebellious colleagues. But the conduct of the opposition, and the declaration I made, with the full consent and by the advice of those with whom I acted, prevented that war. (Cries of " No, no," and cheers.) Why, it was notorious, and I believe the hon. gentleman himself has said that we prevented that war about Denmark. (Hear, hear.) How. then, can he justify these statements, made by a man of his Feat leading in the country, caliunniatinal, I will say, a great political party? (Cheers.) But the hon. member in the same manifesto did not conrine his statements to Europe alone. The interest of some hon. gentlemen had been enlisted on the side of the Southern States in the late war, but the opposition in that house had not in any way ex pressed an opinion on the subject. (Hear, hear.) They did me the honour of consulting me upon the sub ject, and I endeavoured to moderate their opinions. They said the cabinet was divided, and it was only by our hold ing back that prevented a war with this country. Had we no cause for this belief ? Can this be denied And yet the hon. member for Birmingham accusesme personally of wish ing to plunge this country into war with America. Can he deny that those who were desirous of re cognising the independence of the Southern States had every encouragement from the government? Is it not notorious that the chief organ of the government in this house made one of those pilgrimages of passion— (cheers)—which we have lately had a specimen of, into the provinces. (Hear.) Was it not a matter of discussion that the cabinet were on the point of acknowledging the Southern States? (Hear, hear.) And yet this minis ter is the tried friend of the hon. gentleman, who is not content with imputing to us an anxiety. to involve this country in these external calamities, but nays the tory party are the cause of all the wretchedness which has afflicted the people for the last 30 years. I will u.k what has been the conduct of the tory party during that period! There have been 9.6 measures introduced into this house, the object of which has been to ameliorate the condition of the people and to reduce their hours of labour-{cheers)—and to secure to them payment of wages in the current coin of the realm, and to save them from torture and oppression in mines and collier:ee, and to extend to all their ingenious arts the successfu l ameliorations which had been introduced into the factories. (Hear, hear.) These measures were passed with immense difficulty. (Hear, hear.) Never was there an opposition exercised against measures stronger or more resolute, and who proposed these measures! Why, gentle men who sat on his side of the house, and they were passed by the united energies of the tory party. (Cheers.) The liberal government of the day invariablybut mainly and I chiefly under the influence of a Glass, but especially of that one indiaidual who exerted himself upon all occasions to oppose these measures, but his opposition was ulti mately defeated, and that individual was the hon. member for Birmingham. (Cheers.) Shall I be told that these measures were merely the schemes of dreaming philoscs phers and maudlin humanitarians! The hon. member for Westminster says we know nothing about the working classes, and the hon. member for Lambeth, in one of his freakish speeches, repeats that statement. 'Why my house was day after day and year after year full of these men. They paid for deputations to come to the metropolis constantly to see members of parliament, and they communicated with me; and I be came so well acquainted with them, that during their re cent calamity in the north they frequently wrote to me upon it. My noble friend (Lord Stanley) near me also know, something of the working classes. When be used to pass through the lobby of she old house of parliament they, and their wives and children would cling to us, and ask us to support these measures, upon which their future happiness and prosperity depended. They felt that we were their only friends—)" oh, oh," and laughter)--and they feared the opposition of those who now say that they are the friends of the working classes. (Cheers.) I hope I was justified in vindicating the great party upon this side of the house from the elabo rate attack made upon us before the people of England by a man who wields so much influence, and whose policy the government follow, but whose opinions, I confess, I do not believe the people of England will rally round. (Cheers.) His eloquence, unrivalled energy, and great abilities may place them before them in a captivating manner, but to my mind they are opposed to the instincts and character of the English people. I believe that English and not American principles predominate in this country. (Cheers.) The hon. member for Birmingham has at least the ' merit of candour—he never conceals his opinions, but speaks with a frankness that we don't find in the measures of the government. (Cheers.) We know , what he wants and intends to do, and though I believe his principles are dangerouse, and may be fatal, we can guard against them. (Hear.) But the great and extreme danger is this, that the hon. member for Birmingham, to use a phrase borrowed frouithe practice of one of our noblest pastimes, has a confederate, and he sits on the treasury bench. (Opposition cheers.) I have put before the house the principles on which parliamentary reform ought to proceed. It ou.Ot to proceed on English and not American princtiples—(ere)—and on the ground that we are the House of Commons and not the house of the people. If we are to admit the working classes to the suffrage—and I do not grudge them the suffrage—we ought to do it in the spirit of the constitution. But the leader of this huuae, and a counsellor of the sovereign, goes to Liverpool and advocates American principles in their widest signification. (" Oh, oh," and counter cheers.) I do not make a statement which I am not prepared to substantiate. The right hon. gentleman, following the example, as he always does, of the hon member for Bineunghani—(laughter)—went down to Liverpool, and, joining in au agitation, expounded his policy, which was founded on American and. not on English principles. (Hear, hear.) He said he had put forward a very mode rate reform bill, which would only introduce 400,000 addi tional voters, but if his views of the English constitution are the same as mine, that is a very great addition to the estate of the Commons. (Hear, hear.) He observed that this moderate measure was opposed and treated with great obloquy and contempt, and that a noble lord had proposed an amendment the common sense of which I think has been recognised by the country-4" oh. oh," and cheers from the opposition)—for the purpose of defeating the bill. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that notwithstanding the moderation of their measure, 4,500,000 were excluded, " tiring and breathing men, citizens like ourselves, payers of taxes like ourselves, bound to every civil duty like ourselves, and having interest, in the common welfare of the community like ourselves." (Ironical cheers.) Now, I don't object to your having American principles—(" oh, oh,")—only let us clearly un derstand what you mean. (Hear, hear.) There is only one interpretation I can put upon the righ t hon. gentleman's speech, and that is that these 41 millions have as much right to form a part of the constituent body as the 400,000 to whom he proposes to give the franchise. (Cheers.) Then we all remember the speech of the right hon. gentleman a year and a half ago, which confused the house and perplexed and agitated the country, and in which he based the franchise on the rights of man. (Laughter and cheers.) He afterwards published that speech with an explanatory preface which no one could understand— (a laugh)—and the thing passed off. He published the preface to please his colleagues, but he never changed his opinions, and when he went to Liverpool he again expressed his belief and opinion that the suffrage was a moral right and ought to be so considered. (Hear, hear.) I will read another passage on this subject, the words of one of the wisest men that ever sat in this house—Sir George Lewis. He said, " You may talk of the rudeness of monarchical government, but I defy you to point out anything in monarchy so irrational as counting votes in stead of weighing them—of making a decision not on the knowledge and ability or fitness of the judges, but on their numbers." These were wise words. Sir George Lewis was a great loss to this country, and a greater loss to the House of COMMOIIs. He would not have built up a consti tuency on the rights of man ; he would not have counselled the whig party to reconstruct our institutions on an American mosiel. It is because I wish to avert from this country these calamities that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble lord. (Loud cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose, and was received with cheers, again and again repeated. He said :—At last, sir, we have obtained a clear declara tion from an authoritative source, and we now know that a bill which in a country with five million adult males (cheers)—proposes to add to a limited constituency 200,000 of the middle and 21)0,0000 of the working classes is in . the judgment of the leader of the tory party a bill to reconstruct our institutions on American principles. (Cheers.) Rising, sir, after 1 o'clock in the morning to review as well as I can a debate of eight nights' duration, I would gladly have passed by the defence. as he calls it, which the right hon. gentleman has made for himself and his friends. I have no desire to interfere in that controversy. I will not attempt to follow him through its details—l have too much respect for the time of the house to weary it with matters which it is in my power to avoid, and I have too much respect for the judgment of the house and the judgment of those who will be acquainted with our proceedings, to have the slightest apprehension that any of the mistakes or misap prehensions which have proceeded from the right hon. gentleman will have any influence on the house or the country. I fun afraid I have much to say and I will begin by endeavouring to clear out of 'the way some misapprehensions which the right hon. gentleman has assisted to propagate. In the first place, I must presume to say one word on the subject of a great name in this house and the country—l mean the name of Lord Palmerston. It has been assumed by gentle men who have spoken to the amendment that they honour the name of Lord Palmerston, by describing him as the enemy of parliamentary reform, and of that which con stitutes the essential point, the very hinge of thia bill, namely, the reduction of the borough franchise. I will, therefore. read a few words which Lord Palmer ston used in proposing the bill of 1860. He said the provisions of that bill were open, as are the provisions of our bill, to consideration in committee, but there is one fundamental principle of the bill which we cannot consent to have infringed, because that would destroy the measure altogether, and that main principle of the bill is the re duction of the borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) Now, it has been supposed that the life of Lord Palmerston was a security against the introduction of a measure of reform. I think it not less due to Lord Palmerston than to his colleagues to Ray that, so far as I am aware, there never was a difference of opinion between him and his colleagues upon the question of reform. The introduction of the bill of 1860 was an important step in redemption of many solemn pledges. The abandon ment of the measure, though it was plain that it would become necessary, was a matter of great difficulty and re sponsibility aa regarded questions of the precise time and circumstances. I know of no member of the cabinet in whose opinion its revival at any subsequent period after its abandonment, and before the dissolution of parliament, would have been wise or warrantable. The right hon. gentleman has grossly misstated the effect of my speech, for I declared that in my opinion it would be wrong to take up the question again till there arrived a state of public opinion which held out some prospect of success. It is true that we slid not go to the country at the last election as the patrons of reform ; but we left the country to pronounce its own impartial judgment ; and all the members of the cabinet were of opinion, after what took place on the hustings, that the time had come when it would be our duty to recur to the subject. No one has the smallest right to suppose that Lord Palmerston dif fered from that opinion. I cannot say positively that he agreed in it, because no cabinet was held before his death to consider what measures should be adopted. But Lord Palmerston, shortly before his death, remarked to one of his colleagues that he thought it would be right for the government, within a limited time, to introduce another reform bill. (Hear, hear.) So much for the honour of Lord Palmerston, which, I confess, does not appear to me to have been in very judicious hands during the chief part of this debate. (Cheers.) Now I come to the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham. It has been charged against us that, while we are the nominal minis try, he is its irresponsible but its real bead. To that charge I shall make no answer ; for such persons as make it are inaccessible, if not to reason and justice, at any rate to anything that I could say. It would have been discreditable to government not to have consulted all the great organs of opinion of its different sections, and it would have been culpable in usif from cowardice we had refrained from referring to the hon. member. But in point of fact we know no more of his opinions than the lion. gentlemen opposite, and our knowledge is obtained through the same channels of information. Of the four points which he recommended we concurred in only one—namely, the policyof separatingthe franchise from theredistribution of seats. In my opinion we should have been the most contemptible of poltroons in the world if we had shrunk from acting upon our own convictions, because we very well knew that the leader of the tory party, forsooth— (cheers)—would found upon that circumstance a charge of subservience which he himself knows to be as unfounded as it is unjust. (Loud cries at " Oh," and counter cheers.) Why here we not got the 101. franchise adopted,by my hon. friend and the right hon. gentlemen, and tue 61. franchise introduced in 1860 under the sanction of the member for Caine, and declared by Mr. Bright to be the highest figure that could be admitted into a Reform Bill! My hon. friend with great wisdom supports the bill, which gives far less of popular franchise than was given by the bills of Lord Palmerston and Sir G. Lewis : but is it not strange that party spirit can change the whole current of men's thoughts and opinions? It is my firm belief that those who adopt Mr. Disraeli's t with regard to Americanising our insti tutions are a = n much against their will to increase the influence of Mr. Bright; and if he lathe dangerous man he ia supposed to be,and has these wicked schemes in his breast, he wiunot be able to give them effect by any arguments, or any course adopted by the government, but by the argu ments of hon. gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) The noble lord opposite (Lord Stanley) complimented me on my reverting to what is termed the flesh and blood argument. The noble lord, the right hon. member for Hertfordshire, and the hon. member for Caine, foundedan immense amount of declamation, on thee supposition that I used the fact of the wgeking classes being flesh and blood as an argument in favour of admitting them to the franchise. The bon. member for Caine answered the argument com pletely, but the fact was, I never used it at all in that sense —(cheers)--but as a reproach to hon. members opposite, when I heard the hon. member for Caine describing the workmen as an invading army that was to bring ruin upon a devoted city, and when I had he has not recanted those opinions, I say it is time to fall back upon the statement, that those men whom you are seeking to exclude, against all reason, are your own flesh and blood. With regard to the noble lord who commenced the debate to-night, I shall submit to any censure he can bestow, and he bestows censure with • tolerably good hand, when he can show that I have said elsewhere of members of this house what I would not say on its floor (Hear, hear.) Whether what I said was platitude, or truth, or revolution—any doctrine, for it has been called all this—l said it in reply to the tumultuous and tempestous cheers of hon. gentle men opposite when reference was made to the working classes. But after what was said by the honourable member for South Lincolnshire and the hon. and learned member for Suffolk on the question of the malt tax with regard to the working classes, I cannot believe that the opinions of some hoar. gentlemen on that side of the house are shared in by all. (Hear, hear.) And now, with regard to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Caine, I at once con fess my disinclination to measure swords with such a champion. (Hear, hear.) I understand the meaning of ch that eer, but it followed and did not precede my own admission. (" Hear," and laughter.) I cannot forget the service which, as • public man, he rendered to the government and the country ; but I may express the hope that when he next rises on this aide to support the views of hon. gentlemen opposite he will ex press himself with more moderation. The right hon. gen tleman used a weapon of great keenness, and he wielded it with so much force and rapidity that I cannot withhold from him my admiration, though I was the object of most of his cuts and thrusts. (Hear, hear.) But when I come to the end and aim of that speech—(loud cheers)—l hope Ido not use too strong an expression when I say that the weapon of the right hon. gentleman was, I will not say degraded, but misapplied. (Loud cheers. When I recollect how the right hon. gentleman as he went on exaggerated more and more ; when I recollect how he went back to his Australian experience, and told the house that anarchy must be put a stop to in the colonies by the paramount interference of the government of the mother country ; when I find that such is the end and upshot of the exercise of his magnificent powers, the admiration which I felt is lost in grief. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend reminds me of a story written by the Princess Palatine of Bavaria for the Duke of Orleans. All the fairies were invited to bestow gifts on en infant, but one of the fairies was omitted in the invitation. The others bestowed on the child every good gift, but the fairy that was not invited came, and said the child has all the talents but one, and that is the talent of not knowing how and for what to use them. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend assumed that we bad insulted the House of Commons. Is that a true charge? My right hon. friend never deals in mere generalities. He endear- Toured to substantiate this charge by adding that I had used these words, " We knew with whom we had to deaL" He says, " That means the House of Commons, and conse quently that the House of Commons is offended." Now, the fact is that we did not mean the House of Commons. There is no more common political and rhetorical artifice, than when a man finds himself stung by a political argu ment, for him to try and turn the sting from himself to the House of Commons. I'll tell my right hon. friend to whom we did apply the words. Not to the right hon. members for Oxfordshire and the University of Cambridge, who agree in the necessity of a reduction in the franchise. Does my right hon. friend recollect the passage in Ariatophanes, where a rebuke is addressed to • certain character, and where the audience is addressed as follows : " Now, all yon Athenians, preyrecollect that I am not speaking of the city, not of the public—l am speaking only of certain deformed and crooked little men ?" Now, using these words strictly ins metaphorical and parliamen tary sense, I may say to my right hon. friend that when using the words "We knew with whom we had to deal," we were not speaking to the House of Commons, but to certain deformed and crooked little men. amongst whom my right hon. friend himself stands the foremost. (Loud cheep and laughter.) We have to deal with him. (Hear, hear.) He is opposed to the borough franchise, and to reform in any shape and form. But he will not consent to oppose this bill on the second reading, he votes for an amendment which says that to this bad bill you are required to add another bad bill. ("Hear, hear," and cheers.) I think, therefore, I was justified in saying to my right hon. friend, "We know with whom we have to deal." We are contending for a reduction of the franchise ; we are opposed by open as well as concealed antagonists ; we wish to take off the concealment ; and to let the people of England know with whom they have t o de a l. (Loud cheers.) My right hon. friend accused me of saying we could give no more statistics. I said nothing of the kind. The member for Northamptonshire knows that we were quite willing to give the statistics they required. Thirdly, my right hon. friend says the infor mation respecting the redistribution of seats is kept back out of mere wantonness. We never said we should withhold it from the committee; but we knew with whom we had to deal, and that ob struction would be attempted when the wilderness of details connected with the subject was produced. It has been imputed to us that the question of the re distribution of seats was reserved with • view further to influence the public mind. Such a latent purpose would be totally unworthy of gentlemen in the position of mi nisters, or of any man in any capacity or station. I cannot wonder when such opinions of the government are enter tained by its supporters to hear them expressed by gentle. men opposite. Those who have general confidence In the government, and at the same time think them capable of any such act as that, I should advise to withdraw their general confidence and make it their first business not to propose such a motion as that of the noble lord, but to put the government out of office by the most direct means. (Loud cheers.) Now as to the charge of tyrannising over the house—and I have some personal advantage in ad dressing the liberal party upon that subject . If Thal been a man who at the very outset of my career, half a century ago, had brought forward in two great groups measures of which the leader of the tory party for the last half hour of his speech seems never to have heard—l mean the removal of religious disabilities and parliamentary reform—if I had been the man who in my early youth, in the first stage of my parliamentary career fixed upon those questions, and made them my own, and prosecuted them with sure and unflagging interest till encomia was won— whose name has been associated for forty years with every measure of beneficent legislation—if I had been Lord Rus sell—(loud cheers)—there mig i ilt have been some tempta tion in me to exercise some uthority, and apply some pressure to the house in itse lf unjustifiable. But lam not. The right hon. gentleman, secure in the recollection of his own consistency—(great laughter and cheering)—has taunted me to-night with the error of my boyhood. The right bon. gentleman when he addressed the member for Westminster showed his magnanimity by declaring that he would not take the philosopher to task for what he wrote 25 years ago ; but when he caught one who, 36 years ago, when just emerged from boyhood, and still an undergraduate at Oxford, had [expressed an opinion adverse to the Reform Bill, of which he has long and bitterly repented, then the right hon. gentleman could not resist the temptation—(loud and continued cheering)—and he. a parliamentary leader of 20 years, is so ignorant of the House of Commons to this day that he positively thought he had got a parliamentary advantage in exhibiting me to the public as an opponent of reform. (Renewed cheers.) As the right hon. gentleman has so exhibited me, let me exhibit myself. I was bred under the shadow of the name of Canning, and every influence connected with that name governed the politics of my boyhood and youth. With Can ning, I rejoiced in the removal of religious disabilities ; with Canning, I rejoiced in the character which he gave to our policy abroad ; with Canning, I rejoiced in the opening he made towards the establishment of free commercial intercourse between nations ; with Canning, and under the shadow of that great name and under the yet more venerable shadow of the yet greater name of Burke, my ignorant youthful mind and belief were impressed, just as the mature mind of the right hon. gentleman is now—{langhter and cheers)—with terror and alarm at the first Reform Rill. The only dif ference between us is that having these opinions I moved the debuting society in Oxford to express them in the clearest, plainest, most forcible, down right English —(cheers)—while the right hon. gentleman is obliged to skulk under the cover of an amendment like this. (Pro longed cheering.) I envy him not one particle of the polemical advantage he has gained by his discreet reference to the proceedings of the Oxford Union Debating Society. (Cheers.) I have none of the claims Lord Russell has upon this question. I came as an outcast, driven from those with whom I acted, and I came before you in forma pau pests, with nothing to offer but faithful and honourable service. You received me with kindness, with indulgence, with generosity, and even in some measure with confidence, and in the relations between us you never can be my debtor, and I must he for ever your debtor. (Cheers.) Now let me endeavour to state the position of this ques tion, for this is a historical debate. This is a starting point for parliament The charge brought against us is that we 1866. have introduced a franchise bill. Is that a great offence? There were two reasons that might have moved us. One was the reamnableness of the . policy which might lead us to avoid independent combinations of per sons to reject the bill on different grounds. We were not Influenced by that, but the conclusive reason was that which I mentioned in introducing the bill, that the par ing ' of a combined bill was impossible in the time we had at our disposal. Had we introduced a combined bill not only would there have been another failure, but that failure would have been attended on our part with great dis honour. The noble lord the member for King's Lynn frankly owned that the alternative was to postpone the bill for another year. I ask the noble lord to put himself in our position. We were the authors of two or three failures. We had most of us taken part in rejecting the bill of Lord Derby; we found on inquiry that we could obtain all the information in time for legislation. Wm it then a great offence, to be visited with extreme severity, that under these circumstances we thought it more to our own honour to do at once that which we could do at once, and to postpone to an ulterior stage that which required to be postponed, and must either be postponed alone or must be postponed along with the whole subject? Had the house shown a disposition never to entertain the subject of the franchise without the subject of the redistribution of seats? No such thing. The bill of the hon. member for East Surrey was discussed spin and again in this house, and carried by large majorities without one word being said as to the redistribution of seats. The same as to the bill of the hon. member for Leeds. Then there is the case of Ireland. Ireland has the smallest boroughs and the smallest constituencies in the United Kingdom, and yet the house, without the slightest scruple, passed a measure extending the franchise in Ireland without touching the question of the redistri bution of seats. But there is other evidence. What did gentlemen say when they went to their constituents? I have found the addresses of 117 borough members who entered particularly on the subject of parliamentary re form, and out of those no more than 16 referred to the question of redistribution of seats ' • and I believe every one of these 16 is going to vote for the amendment. Those who spoke of the franchise alone were no fewer than 101 ; and therefore it cannot be said that there is any great guilt attaching to the government in this respect. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) has argued this question on very high ground ; but what did he do in 1859? The ques tion of boundaries is now regarded as the most important of those which have been raised, but the noble lord threw it entirely in to the future , for his bill only directed an in quiry to be made which might lead to after legislation. (Cheers.) Besides the noble lord had actually recom mended the scheme of his government for equalising the borough and county suffrage, because it would peeve it open to parliament to enfranchise or disfranhise as much as it pleased. (Cheers.) And yet the noble lord comes here with his excellent speech—excellent in everything except its effects to the noble lord himself — about the intolerable inconvenience of making any separa tion between the two branches of reform. (Cheers.) Then the noble lord illustrates his argument by stating that the financial measures of the year are never considered sopa parately. That is true. But does the noble lord for get that controversy, of historic fame, which was closed five years ago? Till that time, when for the protection of the just rights of this house, the present system was adopted, the practice was exactly the reverse ; and from what quarter of the house did the chief arguments in favour of separate legislation then come, if not behind the noble lord? (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) has come forward with a helpful suggestion, namely, that we should proceed by resolution ? But while I convey to him my acknowledg ments, I would ask him how he would early it into effect? If we put the names of the boroughs to be disenfranchised into a resolution, in what respect would it differ from a redistribution bill? The hon. member for Birmingham has truly said that it would be possible to redistribute the meats so as to frustrate the effect of your reduction of the franchise. If we were likely to in troduce a scheme of that kind the remarks to which we have been subject would be just. But we are not persons who have given no indication of our views. We believe that redistribution of seats!. altogether of secondary importance as compared with the extension of the franchise, and that there is nothing in it that can materially effect the question of what the suffrage shall be. The right hon. gen tleman's proposal might be very well if we were desirous of cooking theseate,butwedisdainany suchintention. (Cheers.) Sir, we have been asked to do some things and have done them. We have not said that the Redistribution Bill should be brought in next year, and that nothing should be done in it till we have settled the franchise question ; we have said nothing of the kind. We have offered to prolong the sittings through the autumn for the purpose of settling the question of redistribu tion, but no response has been made to that offer. We have been taunted with having changed our front to suit liberal members, and consented to lay the Redistribution Bill before the house before the present bill goes into com mittee. The noble lord is afraid of dissolution, but that would be no gain to us ; on the oontrary, if you did not show so much distrust of the working classes you would be more likely to gain by a dissolution than we. There are persons in the house who desire more than we do. Our object is to draw a separation between those who desire the reduction of the franchise in counties and bo roughs and those who do not. We shall be loth'to quarrel with those who manifest a feeling of com munity with ourselves, but we cannot undertake to lose the ground we have gained. We will not have procrasti nation, and no concealment shall exist if we have the power to unveil it to the public. (Cheers.) Now, sir, it is well understood what is meant by the second reading. (A cry of " Time " from Sir R. PeeL ) I am sure I am greatly pained to have to address the house at this late hour. This is no question of the disfranchisement of dockyard labourers, or as to the number of the leasehold votes. We believe they are few, and, if not, that is a question open to reconsideration ; nor do we pledge any honourable member as to the exact figure of the reduction of the franchise, but we ask for a reduction of the franchise in counties, and especially in towns, as a matter of principle. We have reasons for asking the house to read the bills second time. We have been assailed by the hostility of my noble friend the mem ber fur Chester, acting in concert with the party opposite. Mr. C. BRUCE—I do not believe it. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —The hon. member is not the leader of the opposition. I only re cognise the right honourable gentleman the member for Bucks in that capacity. Ido not complain of my noble friend or of his language. If we are to be dragged at the chariot wheels of anyone, I would as soon be dragged at the chariot wheels duty noble friend as as anyone else. My noble friend has repented of the vote he gave in 1859. But strange inconsistency of human nature, at the very moment that he repents of his sin the tem ptation again presents itself, and again he falls—(" hear, bear, and laughter)—and in the very act of m ak ing confession, he repeats the offence. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend the member for Caine quoted Reliant as to the duties of mi nisters. It is quite true ministers have a double duty to perform—a duty to the crown and a duty to the house. It is their duty also to consider what their own honour requires, what is expedient for the public interests and the efficiency of the house, and after all the promises and m • scamages of so many reform bills, we did feel that it is essential for the credit of the house that when they were asked by the responsible advisers of the crown to give its opinion on the question of the reduction of the franchise in counties and towns, that that question should not be affected by the shadow or substance of a redistribu tion of seats. (Hear, hear.) My noble friend aims a blow at the government, but as one of the verses in that book to which, my right hon. friend and I have referred says, "Let me die in the daylight"—(cheers)---I ask of my noble friend that we may die in the day light (Cheers and counter cheers.) I honour my noble friend for what he has done, but he should state what he means in plain terms (Cheers.) Sup pose that the government brings in a bill for the distribu tion of seats, will my noble friend support the Franchise Bill ? (Cheers.) I challenge my friend to answer that question. (Cheers.) My right hon. friend says he knows nothing of the 204,000. He ows them very well, for he said they were hyperborean who, as you descended, be came more and more drunken, more unfit for the franchise. (" Hear, hear," and cheers.) I admit the excellence of the House of Commons, but I cannot admit that it may not be improved. There is a homely phrase attributed to an individual still alive. He said the old parliament jobbed for individuals and the reformed one for classes. My opinion is, that for the interests of the general public the house is too weak, and that an infusion of thewor • classes would strengthen the pure public interest. My right hon. friend says we have no reason. I think the desire of the public is a reason. The hon. member for Birmingham said there were • hun dred meetings in favour of the bill. (" They were got up.") Do you go and pt up meetings spinet the bill, if you can. (Loud cheers.) I ascertained that there were 187 petitions, and 600,000 signatures. The British constitution is not going to be destroyed—it is merely to be restored. The right hen. member for Oxfordshire said the working classes had more voice in legislation with the old scot and lot system. These voters are now gradually dying out. The electors in boroughs have increased 24 per cent. since 1851, and the population had increased 28 per cent. I ask gentlemen to consider these figures. You have a growth of electors lower than of population, whilst you have an enormous increase of wealth. In 1851 the income tax was worth about 800,000/. per penny, and now it it worth 1,400,000/. per penny. (Hear, hear.) The working classes are worse re. presented than they were thirty years ago, and now, when you admit their greater flutess you will not increase their franchise. (Hear, hear.) Canning and Burke have prophesied like the right hon. gentleman, but these prophecies, as those of the right hon. gentleman will be in time to come, are selected by teachers for the beauty of their language to be translated into Greek and Latin for the declamation of school boys. (Laughter and cheers.) Consider the enormous but silent changes which are going on among the working classes. I ask you, in the langu age of Sr Robert Peel, to " elevate your vision, " to raise it above the fears, suspicions, jealousies, attacks, and recriminations, and look onward to the time of our children and our children's children, and consider whether there is not a steady movement of the labouring dames onward and upward which calls for our attention and demands that we should provide for these things while there is yet time. What is the right bun. gentleman going to do with the family he has collected around him? (Cheers and laughter.) There ought to be some unity of purpose among those who 'mist to destr oy re ._ but in their came we have h a d the moot remaeh e tc owes of opinion amongst the supporters of the Such is the state of opinion on all these pojet,. any man to draw from these passages ez e t i t4 Meeent. That is the state of • pTity, banded together fora chim e permanent lm purpose, meaning one thuag ' debate must come to an end. (Hear, hear 1 ask hon. gentlemen opposite to consider well befi. embark in this new allude. Have jh e of the three great battles yo u h i , been so satisfactory as to induce yoe another ? You have fought the battl e of civii on account of religion , the battle of the old Het and the battle of protection. Has the result eselefeesory that you are disposed to renew th, went. Certainly those who fought on this sat house have no reason to fear. Th e e f fect former battles has been to give to th ere power for five years out of every seven since the the Reform Act, and it has been to relieve you I share of the government of the country. j a state of crisis and peril, and the along with it. We stand or fall with k may fall now, or a short time hence, but If we de, rise with it hereafter. (Loud chews.) I oft ee , with precision the forces that are to be sera aiming struggle. Perhaps the great to-night is not the last. You play succeed at 'some future point o f t h e driving us from our seats. You may bury the bfii introduced, but for its epitaph we will whi t gr avestone this line with a certa i n Hxoriare al i; %uis en nostris ossibus niter." a o u fist You cannot t against the future. Time is co - The great social forces which move in their majesty, and which the tumult of our not for a moment impede or destroy, th ese , forces are against you. They ass arrayed, shelled on our side. The banner • will carry into the fight, though may at one moment droop over our sinking he s e , soon again float in the eye of heaven, and will be the firm hands of the united people of these certain, and perhaps not distant, victory. . „ continued cheers.) . The SPEAKER then put the question, that th proposed to be left out, namely, " That the bd read a second time," stand part of the gumbo& was answered by a tremendous shout of "Ate " Noes" were, however, equally loud ; and the • cleared for a division. As the hon. members streamed in from the underwent the usual anxious scrutiny of the who spent the quarter of an hour in malass guesses as to the accuracy of the various p had been offered of the result. As the moms* the excitement became intense, At last a mot , Brand" announced that the tellers for the completed their task, and presently a cry mee It was fancied therefore that the maim* v. hated. Intro or three minutes afterwards the &elk & " ayes " also made their appearance, and amidst silence gave their numbers to the clerk at the tat were then read by Mr. Brand, as follows: Ayes lll Noes Majority for the government . . Thls result was received, however, wit► tiny and oft-renewed cheers from the opposition. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Fe II place the committee for Monday, and I will the mu order of business. (Renewed opposition ohms.) The house rose at 23 minutes to 4. tlabai anti MtMarg. (PEON LAST FIORT'S GA =n) ADMIRALTY, Ana 25 Commander George Annesley Phayre has bees promnSs retired captain under Orders In Coiled' of Lt lont, 9th July, 1804, and 24th March, 1936 Thomas Owen Jorason, Pas., was promoted to Re rant. maater In her Majesty's beet on the lab inetaM. ADMIRALTY, Aran, M. Mr. William Pratt has Oils day base promote' to at is Ant clam amistant engineer In her linlng's Mal seniorit of lOth April, HO& Yr. Irk Couper haa this day bees west: .1 rank of brat class assistant engineer In her liajestri I!. I 'seniority of 19th March, 1966. ADMIRALTY, Aram 27. —APPollfflurn-ta kin the Hon. J. W. S. Spencer, to the Posh* Johnson, whew period ofservice has erpired. Lieutenant—F. de V. Saunders, to the [Massy lieutenant to Rear• Admiral the Has. J. ft he mond, C.B. Master—J. W. Lowe, additional, to the Melnik Surgeon—F. Mercy, additional, to the thabedis Assistant Paymaster—G. J. Sparkes, addition s* Duncan. _ _ _ insistent Clerk—H. Latimer, to the Dona. Naval Cadets (nominated)—A. B. C. Imytk,L Lk bington, H. Lees, and P. Clinton-Raitt. Chief Engineer—C. E. Chamberlain, to the Lia, fib Ariadne. thPgr—J. Davenport, to the For; F. 13esha re for tenders. Aet•ng Seoond-clsas Assistant Enginsere—G.J.lst to the Challenger ; W. H. Davie, to the Cutback the Adder. EARLY CLOSING ASSOCLATION.—The annride ral meeting was held last evening at the Londe* house, Ludgate-hill; Mr. J. J. Knight Wenn. /NE and Co in the chair. It appeared from the scat' read by Mr. Henry Walker, the sonetary, thaw ceipta for the year had been 1,4091.35. 4d., while it penditure had been 1,304/. 19a. Id.. The labors , . association during the year in theprometion of earlier in the wholesale and retail trade:, and the BatunWs holiday in trades, (manufactures, and jodon had been attended with a great deal of sine was to be announced with regret that the duos to promote the Saturday half-holiday in the eird r had not yet been consummated by the Aim ef nolo of the Treasury, but there was every rearm to Want steps which had been recently Wren weak! si as period bring the subject into practical sad inmost: wideration. The attention of the committee had s directed to the necessity of providing additional WU recreation for those for whom it laboured Petinte been presented to parliament with a view to °twat British Musetun and other national collections for; hours in the week, vix., from seven to o'clock, and with a kindred object the so "- tion had directed its attention to the tweet of of the parks for recreative purposes. Apnbostion cordingly been recently made, although without iron ~, success, to Mr. Cowper, the Commumoner of Witt an extension to Hyde-park of the privilege now arc Regent's-park of playing cricket before 9 am., so permission to use the parks for the same posse u evenings and on Saturday afternoons. The s occianat. also desirous of manifesting in a practical wow 0 terest which it felt in the preservation of the coo and open spaces around London. During the Pl' society's aid and guidance had been sought in heti/ of the early closing movement in the preview. 01' nese establishments in all the large towns hid P the demands made on them. The Chairman exedeew the members of the association on the satisbetall° of its receipts as compared with previous MP' W.: hap_py to say that City establishments hed in 6 wishes, but it was to be regretted that in the ha le London the early closing movement had not ban 010 with the desired result. Mr. Burt nioved the antes the report, which was agreed to. RAILWAY AND OTHER BILLS IN PABU. OIII. Yesterday in Lord Reclecodale's Committee of the le ; of Lords, the following bills we re comideed ' :—The Dublin and Antrim Junetica fro:t e e Eastern Railway (Durham New Llast „' North Eastern Railway (Yorkshire New Iree!• and the Bristol and North Somerset Railway Inier: Extension). Yesterday in group 1 winch,the 00. Commons, the committee proceeded group the Edgware, Highgate, and London Brief", group I A, the preamble was declared not to be . , ~Por " caseof the Croydon, Mitcham, and Kinget o9l4m r4 London and South Western (additional pow ) lic preamble was proved. In group 7 the precen,ji Northampton and Banbury Junction Itailwiff "7,§ proved. The committee in group 15 passed the r: t o of the Lynn and Sutton-bridge Railway (Weeb,.. Lynn) ; and the Lynn and Sutton -bridge, Nwni Bourn, and Norwich and Spalding Rada/an:l'o Wenoum Valley Railway Bills. In groupl6,..w,r;cl of the Burry Railway (Penarth and Cardm'"p was proved. The Great Western Railway, cared Docks (Cardiff) were adjourned. STRIKE or PoaTeas ON THE LANCDHUIti YORKSHIRE RAILWAT.— Yesterday the preen a1.„.,j casbire and Yorkshire Railway struck at tbs. In stations for an advance of wages from 21a to Ea was posted on 'Change by Mr. Cullen, the vas O M requesting cotton brokers no soul cotton to tha on account of the strike. In consequence,el2, cotton at the railway depots has been su s P ow "'"o l feared that unless there is an early rearm Rice the spinners and manufacturers will sustain Or venienee. It is reported that on the Id of May tkes employed by the London and North Wester? 95 straw also. The feeling on the Liverpool 13r favour favour of the men, who are considered to be a Bl 7 that lass, the saddler, to , and dese .of tmasom h e eadvanee , b t r =b- rs, =ten and joiners of Liverpool ram w.-- P. an (4°Penlim thOr of tteh t e hr te " THR LATH TOWN CLERK 07 C• 24100 00 8.1.1. bust in the GuildhalL In a letter to Air. Swerf Antb the Mayor of Cambridge, Mr. J. E. Mayor, of mt has set forth the grounds of this proPeeidtt i r , Alttehlaieenin:sedcpeTlangienaLpufell:lica.ort Cuismaw.:,bb_r,idgetoviee.ro,. so has elven a sketch of Mr. Cooper, the most graceful, animated, and pleasing Poryn'e" ranter that we have seen for a long time. At: :on Well j e d to Co ' its despat being ted of iment ism r. Aiistr nkinV her tea r f Ainokri: net. :wa • dal& mobiliai compel hes firline, line, Abe/di an govi adopti .Fr rice of tr hem Ra st o ppage *is litre. ►unt Kai Id to ha' f ro m ti ke depul wi Chi 0 twq, Id moil( which pe, la public 1 ProIx)" Thursd 1 i 1 '! I ~' I Y, ii oreeides g the tr Id take ier an ions c ie govi ice the sines% I rural I event ich Rea [. de ustry o curator tria the Ci the firc neral ing fr fount 1 ierrou sing p loney Rion, w York D Unit idling fitly f lay. 1 : cru otton :k's lig )rta, 2 MIS. TON telei Dived the ete arri'c Digs tt mails hit 80C ded he Iderles Ir her pmai LIB. LE C] I. ;ll';l tter 4zu k4 r a he hou paa ntie curd good ar-Ge Fe,l llll l afar that >nal 1 Rt 3( lat