The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-29 00:00:00

made suddenly. He .was as much desirous as the hon. member for Birmingham that the working classes should have a:large share in the representation ; but he was not prepared at the present moment, looking at the state of edu cation in this country, to give the whole power of the repre sentation to the working classes or the holders of small tenements. He should therefore vote for the resolution of the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) But he wished to go a step further, and look at the position of the house and the coun try on this subject. He confessed for his own part, he should very much like that, the house having carried the resolution the Government should still go on with their bill, and, having ex urged all the objectionable clauses in committee, they should make the bill satisfactory to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) He thought the Government ought to be fairly left to the alternative of resigning their offices or dissolving Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He at least should throw no obstacle in the way of their doing se, but he should not think of advising them to dissolve, for he be lieved they would cut a very awkward figure on the hust ings--(hear)—and therefore he thought that would not be a safe expedient for them to take. (Hear, hear.) He should, moreover, like to know what chance there was, when they had disposed of this Government, of their being able to form another Administration which would propose and carry a very different measure from the present ? He was not san guine on that subject. His noble friend (Lord J. Russell) had proposed to the house two great measures on this subject —one in 1852, and the other in 1854 ; he could not propose a less measure now, and if he did propose a measure, where was he to find the means of carry-nu , it ? As far as the se cond reading all the gentlemen °atilt (the Opposition) side of the house would go with the noble lord, but in committee they could not get on one step without the bill being vio lently opposed. The country was not now in the condition in which it was in 1832, when the cry was " The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill ;" when the public were so deeply interes ted in seeing a Reform Bill carried which would free them from the influenceof the oligarchical interest, and when, if a member voted against the bill, the constituency soon corrected his error. (Hear, hear.) At pre sent he saw nothing but popular agitation aslikely to follow from this question not bemg settled now. (Hear, hear.) It was not the fault of the right hon. gentleman the Chancel lor of the Exchequer that he introduced this bill ; but it was impossible for them (the Opposition) to support it consis tently with their principles. He should, therefore, vote for the resolution, because the right hon. gentleman told them he should persist in the confiscation of the county voters. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Ellice) should, therefore, throw from his side of the house to the other the consequences of an agitation which would be most detrimental to the interests of the country, and particularly of the working classes themselves. (Hear, hear.) Col. SMYTH said he should support the second reading of the bill, reserving to himself the right to propose such amendments and improvements in committee as he thought would make it a satisfactory measure to the house and the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. JOHN LOCKE regretted that the Government, not knowing their followers, had rejected .'the advice of the right hon, gentlemen who had retired from among them to lower the borough franchise to £6. He gathered from all the swehes he had heard delivered by hon. members on the Ministerial side of the house that they were in favour of the two principles contained in the resolution of the noble lord the member for the City of London, and he would therefore advise the Government to at once adopt them and make them the basis of the bill, notwithstanding that the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) had raised the Irish cry of "No surrender." If they had taken that course at first they would have obtained from the house that indulgence which they had hitherto enjoyed ; lie was willing to admit that they deserved it for the great ability with which they had managed the affairs of the country. He called upon the Government to consider well whether they could not consistently adopt the resolution. If they did not intend to adopt the principle of the resolution, it was absurd to proceed with the bill ; and he thought it was a misfortune that the Government had not met the resolution in this spirit. Lord A. TEMPEST said a groat deal had been said about sympathy with the working classes. The hon. member for Dorsetshire made, on the first dvening, what was acknow ledg. ed to be a very talented speech. That hon. gentleman said that a party in that house were afraid of the working classes. (An ironical cheer.) He (Lord A. Tempest) would answer that cheer presently—(hear)—but if the house went into an analysis of fears, would it not be found that the hon. member for Dorsetshire was actuated by fear of his next reception on the hustings ? There was an assumed theory on the part of the honourable member for Birmingham and the honourable member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that they possessed an exclusive sympathy for the working classes. But he would challenge those honourable gentlemen to a comparison with the landed gentry, whether in agriculture or in trade—for there were members of the aristocracy en gaged in trade—in order to see by which of the two classes the comforts and status of the working classes were most cared for. All' he said to hon. gentlemen opposite was— Don't put yourselves forward as if you and you only had sympathy with the working classes. Who was it that re sisted the passing of the Factories Act ? Why, hon. gen tlemen opposite—(hear, hear)—and who supported it ? The • aristocracy of the upper house and those connected with them in that ; therefore let not hon. gentlemen oppo site pretend to monopolise all sympathy with the working classes. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the present Ministry presented a very favourable contrast to the last, by their industry, their devotion to business, and their general courtesy—(hear, hear)—irrespective of all political views. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to Lord Malmes bury, as it had been said by the right hon. gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, in his eloquent speech on Friday, it was not the Minister but the policy of the Go verment, which had succeeded. There had been no sub mission- to the dictation of foreign Powers • but English prisoners had not been left to rot in Neapolit an gaols, and told afterwards that the eye of the Minister was upon them. (Hear, hear.) Nor did ha wish the Government to accept the proposition of the noble lord the member for Tiverton. (Hear, hear.) There Nras yet a course open to the Govern ment, namely, to withdraw the bill—(cries of " Oh, oh," and cheers)—for the present, and appeal to the house, not by a crafty resolution, but by the exhibition of a safe, just, moderate, and wise measure—(oh, oh, and interruption)— to appeal to them as to the wisdom and justice of the pro positions contained in the bill—as to the prudence of their conduct since they entered upon the administration of affairs, and, whenever they did so, he (Lord A. Tempest) believed they wo rl d find the verdict of the house favou ra bl e to them. (H hear.) Several hon. members rose together, but the Speaker's choice fell upon Mr. M. Milnes. Mr. M. MILNES said that he thought that considerable advantage had been gained by the debate that hid taken place upon the subject, and that a good basis had been arrived at for reform. He thought that the discussion had been ,one that would be satisfactory to the country, and that it had been discussed in a just and honourable spirit. He thought the debate had been divided into several heads, in the same manner as a sermon, and he proposed to divide the observations that he had to make upon the subject in the same way. He could not say that he thought the resolution of the noble lord either factious or unjust. He thought that in considering it one ought to compare the position of parties ; for in raising a great moral question such as this, it was impossible not to look at the antecedents of indivi duals and of parties. It was impossible to consider it without considering the disadvantages it was under in coming from the Government instead of being the produc tion of a party which had always been connected with re form. If the Government, instead of bringing in a bill upon the subject, had wa it e d till a bill had been introduced from that side of the house—(laughter) —and till all parties on that side had agreed to a measure—(laughter)—they might have enjoyed the position of neutrality which they would then have had, or if they had not done this they might have introduced a simple measure upon the subject; either of those two courses they might have adopted, but they had chosen to deal with the whole question of reform in pre ference. He would not have found so much difficulty in dealing with the bill if it had not contained one important principle—that was, the extension of the franchise in boroughs. His ideas with regard to that were so distinct that so far from thinking the resolution of the noble lord the mem ber for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) a trick or a dodge, he considered it, or at any rate the latter part of it, a mere truism. He wished to vote for that principle either now or in committee ; but he felt himself precluded from the latter course from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), who did not appear to leave such a course open to the committee. He thought that all such questions as uniformity of suffrage ought to have been left open, and then they would have come upon them accidentally as it were, in committee, and not as a novel plan insisted upon as a standing place upon which the constitution was to stand for ever so many years. As to the question of the disposal of seats, he did not think the country took much interest in the subject. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, for instance, instead of being gratified at the prospect of an increased number of members, the constituency had often publicly expressed their satisfaction at the not system, by which they were represented by two, and not four mem bers. .For the reasons he had stated, he could not vote for the second reading of the bill ; but if the Government would withdraw it, and bring it in again in a le s s objecti ona bl e form, he would give it all the su pp or t i n hi s p ower . (H ear .) . Sir J. GRAHAM said,—Mr. Speaker, Ido not rise to reply to the speech of my hon. friend the member for Pon tefraq. I have long been anxious to make up my mind on this question. It is often no less difficult to know what it is one'.s duty to do than to perform that duty when we have made up our minds. I certainly did wish not to have seen the day arrive when it would be necessary for this house to reconsider the fundamental principles on which our consti tution is based. I took a part —a humble part, but a sin cere one—both in the preparation and the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. The right hon. gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, in introducing this bill to the house, used an expresssion which grated on my ears. He said the statesmen who took part in the Reform of 1832 appeared to him,to have had to treat the subject in many respects a emp i r i ca lly." I can hardly think the right hon, gentle man used that word in its more invidious sense. If it were necessary to defend the authors of that measure, I should refer him to the noble lord at the head of the Government of which he is a member, without whose aid we should have experienced great difficulty in carrying that measure of 1832, zind I should have to mention such names as those of Lord 'grey, Lord Althorp, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Dm._ ham., I confidently believe that the memory of these great men will be justified from any such reproach by the verdict of histdry. (Hear, hear.) But there is another meaning to the word empirical which I amrather disposed to think the right hon. gentleman intended to attack to it—that is to say, that the measure of 1832 was an experimental measure. Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) The right hon.ientleman treated it as an experimental measure. I should certainly wish to call the attention of the house, after an, experience of 27 years, that the change then effected vas iMmense. The noblelord the member for the City of London described it to us as "a bloodless revolution " happily, bloodless, but still a revolution. (llear,,hear.) It undoubtedly transferred the centre of power in this country from the aristocracy to the middle classes; and, if itibe re garded as an experimental measure, I am satisfied that the country, together with myself, entertains the opinion that that experiment has been largely successful. (Cheers.) It was the object of the framers of that measure so to blend the influence of property and of numbers that all collision with the Throne and with the aristocracy, who by its provisions were deprived of a large share of power, might be avoided ; and the proportions then adjusted have been so successful that since that time the country has enjoyed better legisla tion, greater prosperity, more interrial peace, and has been exposed. to less civil discord than at any other period of equal duration since our Parliamentary history commenced. (Cheers.) Viewing it, then, as an experiment, I think I stay safely assume that on the whole it has proved success ful. For one, I would gladly have adhered, at least during my life, to that settlement as a final one. Its authors, at the time of passing it, certainly did hold out to the country, and " to the Sovereign, whose assent it received, an assurance that, because it was large, and because it was comprehen sive, hopes might justly be entertained that it would be a final settlement. I clung to that sentiment for a very long period myself ; but I subsequently found, from cir cumstances upon which it is needless now to dwell, that finality, as a position, was no longer tenable, and from that period it became my duty from time to time to consider what alterations or amendments of that mea sure might safely be proposed and supported. Now, the first care of Reformers, as it appears to me, ought to be to prevent the necessity of further reformation. I was struck by an observation which fell from the noble lord the Secretary of State for India, in the able speech which he made in defence of the measure of the Government, clearly showing that at the very time he advocated this bill he violated the great canon of reform to which I have alluded —viz., that your first care when you reform ought to be to avoid the necessity of further reformation. The house will remember that the noble lord, in using the term " identity of suffrage," said that that principle would afford an easy mode of hereafter altering, or rather of disfranchising, the smaller boroughs, which disfranchisement, he said, was in his judgment inevitable. By the favour of the gentlemen who sit around me I occupy this place [the second bench below the gangway on the Ministerial side], though in many respects differing in opinion from them. But they will permit me to recall to their recollection how great, practically, has been the change which has taken place in reference to reform within the last month. Lord Derby, the head of the present Government, received the confi dence of the Conservative party, when in 1852 he became Prime Minister, upon the assurance that his special mission was to stem the tide of democracy and to raise a barrier against its dangerous encroachments. (Hear.) Well, what has occurred within the last month ? I, in the year 1857, voted with my hon. friend the member for East Sur rey for the reduction of the occupation franchise in counties from £5O to £lO. I then took the liberty of assigning the reasons which appeared to me sufficient to justify that pro posal, and I stated why I thought it might safely be con ceded. Gentlemen on this side of the house offered a stren uous opposition to that reduction. I do not think there was a gentleman sitting on this side who supported it, and they urged the gravest objections against it. Now, Lord Derby's Government has proposed that change--the reduction from £5O to MO—deliberately and advisedly ; and, as a coun terpoise to what might be apprehended as the democratic tendency of that change, the bill brought in by the Chan. cello r of the Exchequer proposed a countervailing disfran chisement of the borough freeholders, with the view of diminishing what, in the opinion of gentlemen who sit around me, was its danger. Well, without a division, without any more than an expression of opinion from different parts of the house, one-half at least of that counterpoise has been withdrawn; and the measure, I must say, appears to me to be framed upon anentire misconception of that which, when properly understood, is truly conservative in its character. (Cheers.) Now, what are the real dangers of a republican or an extreme democratic change in this country? What are the great landmarks of republican institutions ? I say distinctly that they are manhood or universal suffrage, equal electoral districts, and vote by ballot. A President of the United States, in his inaugural address, distinctly stated that "the Republic rested upon the ballot-box." I don't in tend now to argue that question ; but I believe I have not misstated what are the true dangers to- be apprehended by those who fear republican change. Now, observe what are the principles of this measure. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer said emphatically, and it is not to be denied, that identity of suffrage is the key-stone, the leading principle of this measure ; and it has been argued so by the noble lord the Minister for India. You have, then, identity of suffrage; you have electoral districts, not now equal, but unequal ; and it is proposed to have voting papers. I contend that these three propositions, which are the principal outlines of this measure, all have a direct tendency to that which is most to be apprehended by the opponents of republicanism. This identityof suffrage once established atLlO, as my right hon. friend the member for Wiltshire said, one single turn of the hand in a rash moment and that suffrage will be re duced from £lO either to household or manhood suffrage. Again, your electoral districts are now unequal. By all sound logic and consequential reasoning, from the moment your suffrage is identical your electoral districts ought to be equal—(cheers)—and there is a process shadowed out under the Boundary Commission contemplated by this bill, and which is to be issued simultaneously with the reduction of the suffrage, that will constitute your unequal districts into equal ones. (Hear, hear.) There remains, ther, only the ballot ; and, if the house will permit me, before I sit down I will glance at the question as to voting papers. I think, if the conversion of unequal electoral districts into equal ones will be found an easy operation, that the conversion of voting papers enclosed in envelopes into the ballot will be easier still. (Cheers.) I turn now to another branch of the subject, and I should beg to give an opinion that the dan ger of reform is infinitely increased if you proceed upon ab stract principles ; and, according to logical inferences from general principles of change, I should say that this bill was conceived with, I will not say too much sagacity, but with the avowed intention of obtaining from every quarter of the house that support which might effect the object which has been declared to be the primary—viz., the object of passing it. (A laugh.) It appears to me too clever by half — (laughter and cheers)—and a much simpler measure would have been much safer and much more effectual. There is a work which appears to me, now we are discussing questions of this kind, worthy of the greatest attention. It is a work of sound warning. I refer to the work of M. de Tocque ville upon the ancient regime, and on the causes which immediately led to the French Revolution. The passage of which I have attempted a translation, and which, with the permission of the house, I will read, refers to this point of framing reforms with great astuteness upon gene ral principles, and according to the symmetry which logic dictates. He says— " When the history of our Revolution is studied it is apparent that it was conducted precisely on the same prin ciples which have dictated so many abstract dissertations on the science of government. The same fondness for general theories, for complete systems of legislation, for exact syminetry of law; the same contempt for existing institu tions, the same reliance on theory, the same taste for what may be deemed original, ingenious, and new in establish ments ; the same desire at once to remodel the whole Con stitution according to the rules of logic and on an uniform plan, instead of endeavouring piecemeal to amend it. Frightful spectacle 1 That which is an excellence in a writer is often a great defect in a statesman, and the same things which have frequently led to the production of beau tiful romances may lead to the issue of great revolutions." I have said that a simpler measure, and one less complicated would have had a much greater chance of success. I have quoted M. do Tocqueville, and there is a saying of Oliver Cromwell addressed to Bernard, a lawyer, which has also some bearing upon this subject. He said, "I understand that you have lately been vastly wary in your conduct ; do not be too confident of this. Subtlety may deceive you, in tegrity never will." (Cheers.) A noble sentiment, and one which ought to be written over the door of every Cabinet. (Cheers.) I shall follow the advice not to use subtlety by at once avowing the share which I had in this resolution. My noble friend the member for London did me the honour of conferring with me after this bill had been laid upon the table. An hon. gentleman upon the Treasury Bench cheers. Is it unnatural, is it dishonourable, that I and the noble lord, who are the only surviving members of that committee which framed the Reform Bill of 184, should confer when a measure was produced purporting to amend and alter it ? (Cheers.) When the noble lord asked me what my impres sion of this measure was, I told him at once that I was quite prepared to vote against the second reading of the bill. (Hear.) That is my view nor, and I stated it more unequi vocally to the noble lord ; but I said there were two or three capital objections to it which I thought might be included in a resolution. The Solicitor-General has said that it is un precedented in the history of Parliament to adopt a resolu tion accompanied by reasons. When I first came into Par liament, the opportunity constantly occurred when the order of the day was read before the second reading, of moving any resolution upon any subject even not germane to the bill about to be discussed. That power was abused, and to expedite business in this house, the power of mov ing a resolution upon the order of the day was renounced, but to say that upon the motion of the second reading of a bill, it is unparliamentary or unprecedented to move a resolution germane to the matter of the second read ing is a doctrine entirely new. Even when the resolution May not be altogether germane to the second reading, there are precedents for the use of that particular mode of attack ing a measure. (Hear, hear.) If, however, there were no precedent, I think the time has arrived when in a delibera tive assembly you are not to be driven into a corner and bound to say "ay" or "no." I think it must be open to you to point out to the house and the country the particular leading reasons which induce you to object to the measure even before the second reading. The French term "negatif motive" does not exist here, and I think the time has ar rived when it is absoluetly necessary that such a power should exist and should be used. The resolution of the noble lord appears to me not essentially and in effect to vary from the course that was pursued with respect to the India Bill last year. It varies in this particular, that the Government then, as now, produced a bill which did not meet with gene ral approbation; the India Bill they voluntarily withdrew, and upon its withdrawal resolutions were passed which were the foundation of their second measure ; on this occa sion, though, I do not think the draught of their first Re form Bill is much more fortunate in conciliating the accep tance and goodwill of the house than was the first draught of the India Bill; they refuse to withdraw their measure, and under these circumstances the resolution is moved, cer tainly for the purpose of defeating the bill in its present shape—(hear)---but it affords to the Government an oppor tunity of withdrawing it and introducing another measure more conformable to the opinion of the house. (Hear, hear.) I fully concede what was stated by the noble lord the Secre tary of State for India, that in matters of this kind it is for the Government to consider and determine what is consis tent with their own honour and with their position; and the decision as to whether they i shall withdraw this bill and sub stitute for it anoth er more n conformity with the wish and opinion of the h ouse an d th e coun t ry must rest w i t h t h em. But it rests with the house steadily to perform its duty and to point out to the Government, at this preliminary stage of the second reading, what are their opinions, and what is their wish in respect to the measure as it now stands. (Cheers.) er m ea om ee e d n h t y , wt-hihattevreelrenmgaedy discussion, u t s h s e i rea en ted at an t d hl in g t t e h n i think 7 t . t o e t , h . ever saw t i h n a t n h ,s 8 exhibited olsP a e g a a te in r 4t Un th an e l p ai rin ity ci e p x l; of thisehill—(cheers)—nor, well considering all the elements of which this house is composed, more disposition now in this Parliament immediately, in this session, to pass a bill w hich would command the sympathy and 'supp support of the country. (Cheers.) My belief is, that at this - moment bill taking the common point of odeparture, the £lO fran chise, lowering to a considerable extent the borough frau hear)—prohibiting the payment of travelling expenses—(hear)—m ultiplying polling-places, disfranchis ing within moderate limits the smaller boroughs—(h e ;r) — and enfranchising with strict impartiality the larger coun ties and larger cities, would command the support of a de cided majority of this house. (Cheers.) But I p ass on to consider this bill as it now stands. It proposes to deal with the imperfections of the Reform Bill of 1832. As it appears to me, those imperfections, so far from being remedied, are aggravated by this measure. (Mar, hear.) I acknowledge that one of the great imperfections in the Reform Bill was the £lO franchise in cities and borou;hs. That was a band age not sufficiently elastic; and it did not expand with the increasing intelligence of the people and their growing fit ness for an extension of the suffrage. (Hear, hear.) How is that met by the present bill ? I will not, at the present moment, deal with what arttermed the " fancy franchises" —I use that term for brevity, and not for the purpose of discountenancing or disparaging them, because I think that some of them are capable of defence, and would be very salutary improvements—(hear, hear)—but I say that with that single exception, which, after all that has been said, cannot in my opinion be largely operative, there • is no alteration made in the city and borough fran chise except by the objectionable addition of the borough freeholders consequent upon their disfran chisement in their respective counties. The other great imperfection in the Reform Bill, and the one which exposed it to more obloquy than any other provision, was the fixing of the boundaries of boroughs by a Royal commis sion. That very imperfection is about to be repeated, ex • posed to all the obloquy which fell upon the former opera tion, attended by the gravest suspicion, and, as I think, not unattended by well-founded objections. However, with re spect to the transfer of the borough freeholders from counties to boroughs, it is true that Lord Althorp at first entertained the very proposal to which this bill seeks to give effect. I am a witness, and could be confirmed, were it necessary, by the noble lord the member for London, that a similar pro posal was made by Lord Harrowby and Lord Althorp to Earl Grey ; and it was made with the viewof increasing, or rather of upholding the territorial influence in the counties. It was discussed fully with Earl Grey, and referred to the Cabinet; but it was decided that, rather than entertain it, the passing of the bill itself by the House of Lords must be risked—(hear, hear)—and that on no account must the con cession be made. Why ? Because we thought we made a very doubtful concession when we admitted the £5O occu pancy clause. And the Solicitor-General dwells on that concession now. He says we departed from our principle when we conceded the Chandos clause that brought in the cos occupiers. ,He presses us with it now. He says we may just as well go further—the principle has been violated, and we may as well concede more, in disregard of the ancient franchise in the counties. But I draw exactly the opposite inference. I say, if we once made that departure from the principle, and found the inconvenience of a departure from prescription, let us, at all events with respect to the boroughs, stand on the sound and ancient principle, on the prescriptive right which the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr.. Henley) proved to demonstration has existed for 400 years; let us maintain the prescriptive distinction between counties and boroughs, the franchise in one resting on pro perty and possession, in the other on residence and occu pancy. (Hear.) Now, I believe Lord Althorp's view was sound when he changed his opinion with respect to this transfer in consequence of the adoption of the Chandos clause. This old borough constituency is the salt that gives a popular savour to the county constituency. (Hear, hear.) Where the borough franchise exists in a large proportion, it has a marked influence on the county choice of members. What is now proposed to do appears to me unjust in the extreme. Every one knows what is the case now. A shopkeeper or merchant in the town, having con siderable interest in his locality, with a laudable ambition to extend his influence, buys a freehold in the county ; perhaps he may have recently purchased it, with all its rights, at its full value • and, without notice, you seek to depreciate the value of his purchase ; you tell him he must exercise an option, and vote either for the borough or the county ; but his double vote will be taken from him, and he or his heirs will virtually be disfranchised. I wish we could be told what will be the effect of this measure in the coun ties in which four boroughs were disfranchised for proved corruption, and which by act of Parliament were thrown into those adjacent counties. The freeholders in those boroughs did not forfeit their rights in the counties. What will be the effect of this bill, for instance, in the hundred of Bassetlaw ? These votes will be transferred to the borough of East Retford, a transfer which the Secretary for India states will increase the value of each vote. But what. will happen in the division of the county you, sir, so worthily re present? (North Nottinghamshire.) 'There are 1,400 or 1,500 borough freeholds included in the hundred of Bassetlaw ; if they are drawn into the borough of East Retford it will lapse into corruption ; if they are exercised the other way, the power and influence of the great landed proprietors will be increased. I will now advert to some admissions of great importance made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech. He admits that in cities and boroughs there has been a great increase of population; he admits an increase of wealth; he admits an increase of intelli gence. The natural consequence, it might be supposed, is that, this increase having taken place since 1832, there must have been also an increase in the number of the voters in cities and boroughs; but the fact is otherwise; the number is gradually diminishing. The right hon. gentle man said he wished "to reform according to the genius of the existing constituencies." Now, this difference between the county and city franchise has never been described more forcibly, clearly, and explicitly than by the noble lord the head of the present Government in his speech in 1854. The passage was quoted by the right bon. member for the University of Cambridge, and it has appeared in juxtaposition with a passage from the recent speech of the Secretary for India. It may be an old prejudice or predilec tion, but it appears to me that the argument of the father outweighs that of the son. (Hear, hear.) I have already said that the prescription of the borough freeholders is of the most ancient date ; in the very great change of 1832 that prescription was carefully preserved. The immediate object and the operation of that bill was the transfer of power to the middle classes ; but I consider it a most dan gerous doctrine to hold that the classes below them do not take a deep and real interest in the question of reform. (Hear, hear.) The working classes may appear indifferent to it ; but there can be no more dangerous error than to suppose they have not this question at heart. Speaking, then, in the strongest Conservative sense, I hold it infi nitely more safe to make timely concessions to reasonable demands than to stand on extreme rights and make no con cession at all. (Hear, hear.) I have already quoted De Tocqueville as to what preceded the French Revolution ; I will read another passage from him, because it is directly to the point. He says :-- " Whpn the poor and the rich have hardly any interests in comnion, no common grievances, no common occupa tions, that darkness, which hides the feelings of one from the other, becomes inscrutable, and the two may live for ever side by side without fathoming each other. It is cu rious to see in what strange security those who occupied the upper and the middle stories of the social edifice lived together up to the last moment when the Revolution broke out, and to hear their ingenious disquisitions on the virtues of the common people, their gentleness, their attachment, their innocent amusements, up to the moment when 1793 was at their door—a sad spectacle, ridiculous and terrible !" Far be it from me to use a passage like that in the spirit of ' intimidation. I use it with a very different feeling. I wish the house not to disregard that historical experience, not to forget that solemn warning. Ido not believe that the admission of a portion of the working classes to the electoral franchise can any longer be refused with safety. (Hear, hear.) The concession of a lower county franchise makes a resistance to a lower franchise in the towns 10 times more difficult. It has been said that this is a kind of Dutch auc tion, that lowering the franchise for the counties will ren der it necessary, ere long, to lower it for the cities also ; I come to precisely the opposite conclusion. Stand upon the ancient difference between the two ; if you establish one common level, there will be a rush to lower both, and that rush will be 10 times more dangerous, inasmuch as the higher level is an innovation, and inequality the ancient prescription and usage. I say, therefore, that justice and safety both point to a Io wenn.. ' of the city and borough franchise. (Hear, hear.) The Solicitor-General has told us that the resolution has two objects. He says, in the first place, that it indicates a fear to give a direct negative to the second reading of the bill. I have already stated that, as far as I am concerned, I could not hesitate to vote against the motion for the second reading, because I think the principles and details of the bill both objectionable. (Hear, hear.) But then he says, addressing those who support the resolution, "You talk in general terms of lower ing the franchise ; what would you do ?" Upon that point I speak only for myself. I agree very much with the right hon. gentleman the member for Coventry in thinking that if you do lower the franchise in cities and boroughs you should do so effectually, upon some principle known to the constitution of the country, on which a stand may be made against ulterior changes. (Hear.) I say distinctly, in conformity with what has been urged by the right hon. member for Oxford, that the ancient borough franchise does rest upon rating and residence—(hear, hear)—and I am decidedly of opinion that th e munic ip a l franchise, as originally framed by my noble friend the member for the city, with three years' residence and two and a-half years' uninterrupted payment of rates, would be a good franchise for Parliamentary el ec tio n s. (Cheers.) It would afford you the best security that could be found for the character of the voter, his permanent residence, his stake in the place in which he lives, and his fitness to exercise political privi leges. (Hear, hear.) I may allude incidentally to the statement we have heard in the course of the debate, that the bulk of the taxes are paid by the upper classes. I re pudiate that doctrine altogether. (Cheers.) It is only necessary to mention six articles ; they shall be sugar, tea, coffee, malt, tobacco, and spirits. These six articles pretty nearly cover the interest of the national debt, and the duties on them are paid chiefly by the working classes. (Hear, hear.) On the ground of taxation, therefore, they are entitled to the suffrage ; on th e groun d of ancient usage they are entitled to it ; and on the ground of their admitted character and conduct, such as the Chancellor of the Ex. chequer allows to exist on their part—on the ground of their growing wealth, their growing intelligence, and their in creasing numbers—they have a fair claim to a larger share of the national representation. In short, let me regard this question in what light I may, I come back to the conclusion that a considerable increase of the working classes in the election of members of Parliament for cities and boroughs is most expedient, most just, and most necessary. (Cheers.) The Secretary for the Colonies put this question in a very pointed manner. He said "This bill practically is for the middle classes ; I own it, the cause is theirs." I believe that in this passage the right bon. gentleman told us the object for which the bill was framed. It is hoped that the middle classes will be selfish—(cheers)—will pertinaciously refuse any extension of the franchise to classes below them which should, pro Canto, be a diminution of their own power, and will consequently give their cordial support to the pre sent bill. The right hon. gentleman went on to say, "Has the time come when it is safe to accept the counter principle that political power should begin to descend to the working classes?" So challenged, Ido not hesitate for a moment to say that the time has come when political power should begin to descend to the working classes. (Cheers.) I would be sorry to weary the house with a discussion of details, but I have the strong es t o bj ec ti on t o th e proposi tion of voting papers. (Hear, hear.) I have already glanced at that point, and I daresay in a sense which will not be acceptable to hon. gentlemen below the gangway on the other side, because I have always been opposed to the ballot. I retain my objections to it, but I should not deal candidly with the house if I did not state that in the con stituency which I represent no object of reform in my memory has made such rapid progress as the demand for secret voting. (Cries of ' No,' and cheers.) I go fur ther, and say that throughout the country—l lament it, I think it will end in disappointment. lam not a con vert to it—the desire for the ballot has made greater progress than any demand for change. (Renewed cries of " No," and cheers.) I would wish it otherwise, because, as I have said, I am not a convert to the ballot, and have always voted decidedly against it ; but, regarded in that light, I must say that the proposed system of voting papers appears to me the closest approximation to it. (Hear.) The hon. and learned member for Marylebone has described, and I think I can describe, what will be the effect. Who will be the witnesses ? There will be two. One must be a householder, but the other will, I think, invariably either be the landlord's agent, or the candidate's agent, or the at torney's clerk, or the banker's clerk. These are the persons who possess local influence. If the landlord is weary of bringing his tenants together on the morning of an elec tion or attending them to the polling booths, his instruc tion will obviously be to his age n t, " Mind that all my tenants get voting papers ; take care that all is right in point of form; above all, go round and see that the papers are signed." If his influence be not sufficient he will call in the aid of the banker's clerk, probably a householder, who knows well what the cash credits of the tenants are, and who will soon explain to them how desirable it is that they should sign the voting papers. Or if ttfit pressure be not enough the influence of the attorney Alia be brought in to_ play—the st ronges t screw, perhaps, of all. (A laugh.) ki l'ta t will then be the position of the unhappy vo t er ? H e bribery han r t this own t a bl e i n h i s own house, no person to assist him, no refuge, nothing but consen t i s poss ibl e. (H ear. ) If tta man's m of e s d y: where can it be practised in great er secrecy; if i n ti m id ation, where can it be used with greater effectf briy is that intended, system t e own h v o a u tsien?g papers (Hear, w will hear.? so persuaded increase both intimidation and bribery that, after the first general election, the demand for absolute secrecy, which now is spreading, will beeoriao uhiversol. (Cheers.) The lon, and learned member for Marylebone referred to a scene which took place in this house a few days ago. I was pre sent on that occasionochen we had a discussion on this very question of voting papers in connection with municipal elec tions, and I think I have the words which were used by the hon. member who introduced the Municipal Elections Bill with regard to his experience as to voting papers. The hon. member for Preston said—" It was found that, under the system of voting papers, electors who were unable to write were often fraudulently induced to vote for the wrong can didate. This practice had been going on for a long time, and, in consequence of the representations made to him on the subject, he proposed by this clause that voting papers should no longer be used." (Hear, hear.) Thus ten days have not elapsed since this house, by common consent, with out discussion, struck voting papers as utterly indefensible out of a bill relating to municipal elections. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend the member for Leeds has great ex perience in this matter with regard to the election of Poor law guardians. The hon. and learned member for Maryle bone pointed out the great difference between the two cases. There is no great excitement with respect to the election of guardians in ordinary circumstances, but I am greatly de ceived if my right hon. friend would not tell the house that, in his large experience at the head of the Por Law Board, even with regard to the election of guardians, when there was much local excitement, these voting papers were found to lead to great abuses, and that at least they ought not on any account to be extended. (Hear, hear.) T have gone, perhaps, too far into questions of detail, but they are important, and I wish to show how wide are my objections to this bill—so wide that I could not hesitate to give a direct negative to the second reading. (Hear, hear.) I object alto gether to the lodger votes which are now proposed. I say that lodgers are a class of p ersons belonging to a floating population ; they have no. settled habits—(a laugh)—no fixed residence, no payment of taxes, and no settled interest in the place they inhabit. On all these grounds the provi sion in the bill is an innovation, and is not coupled with residence or payment of rates and taxes, which I consider essential. (Hear, hear.) If the amount of rent should drop from the Bs. a week mentioned in the bill to 45., I think you might as well come to universal suffrage. (Hear, hear.) I also have very great doubt about others of these fran • chises. It may be unnecessary jealousy, but why have a certificated schoolmaster ? On the question of education being discussed I ventured to predict that the Government of the day would have very extensive influence arising from the arrangements in respect to that matter, but I never expected to see a proposition so soon made, that no schoolmaster other than certificated should have the vote. (Hear, hear.) Then with respect to the pen sioners the words are significant. They are—" who shall no longer be permanently employed." You might imagine that occasional employment might be dealt out to them on the eve of an election, and that the pensioners, together with the schoolmasters, would be under the con trol of the Government. (Cheers.) I shall not now argue the question of the savings banks and the amount of £6O. I think that in the bill which the noble lord the member for London and I introduced the amount was placed at £5O. But the more I reflect on this suffrage the less expedient and just I think it. Suppose it were necessary for the qua lification of a peer or commoner to vote in either house that be should have a balance of £5,000 at-his banker's, how many peers and commoners would have a vote ? (Hear, and a laugh.) I shall now conclude, for I have said enough, and more than enough. I think Gibbon tells us that when a man proposed a change in the fundamental laws of Rome he stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck. If his proposition were rejected he was stantly strangled. I hope that my right hon. friends on the Treasury bench will not imagine that such sharp justice will be done to them. (A laugh.) I understand that they rather contemplate strangling us than we strangling them. I agree very much with my right hon. friend the member for Coventry. If the Government do not think it consistent with their honour to take this resolution and proceed with the bill, and if they desire to appeal to the country, advis - ing the Sovereign to exercise her prerogative for that pur pose, I shall be found most unwilling to take any factious course which might impede them in that proceeding. (Hear, hear.) But I say this, that a day of heavy reckoning will come in the next Parliament, and - that within my memory no such responsibility was ever incurred by any executive Government. (Cries of" Hear.") These considerations are theirs; our consideration is fearlessly and untimidly to do our duty in this house. :(Cheers.) I should have thought that the carrying of the resolution would have been regarded as a milder course than the rejection of the bill on the second reading; but if a 'sense of honour and duty should lead the Government to consider the resolution as equal to the rejection of their measure, and they should act accord ingly, they must meet their fate. (Cheers.) I have not, and I am sure they will admit it, taken any factious course in opposition to them. (Hear, hear.) I have not desired their overthrow, and I do not now desire it; but if they think fit to meet their fate they must encounter all the danger as well as all the difficulties. (Hear, heir.) Our course, how ever, is plain. We 'must do our duty, while we remain here the representatives of the people of this country, to that noble people whom we represent. (Cheers.) We shall be ready at all times to give an account of the manner in which we have acted, and, for my part, I cannot hesitate both to support the resolution, and, if necessary, to vote against the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.) Sir J. PAK INGTON—I am bound to admit that my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle has on this occa sion addressed the house in a most calm and temperate manner. Nothing could be more fair than the mode in which he has argued the matter before the house; but I think I am not misrepresenting his argument when I say that his objection to the bill throughout was grounded on the identity of franchise. Before I sit down I will advert to this part of the argument of the right hon. gentleman, but at the outset I -must express my regret that the right hon. gentleman should have expressed an opinion that be cause the resolution is germane to the subject-matter of the bill, therefore it is regular and proper for the noble lord to move the resolution inthe way he has done. The right hon. gentleman said nothing in the course of his speech which tended to show in the slightest degree why it is not compe tent for the noble lord the member for London, or any other member, to take objections to those parts of the measure of which they disapproved when the bill goes into committee. (Hear, hear.) On the part of the Government I complain of the course which the noble lord has taken. (Hear, hear.) I admit the great weight due to the opinion of fhe right hon. member for Carlisle on any question connected with the practice of this house, but I have taken some pains to aster tain from the highest authority how far the noble lord's proceeding is consistent with the usual practice of this house, and I have no hesitation in saying, on far higher authority than my own, that the course taken by the noble lord is unparliamentary and irregular, and one of which we have justly the greatest reason to complain. (Hear, hear.) At the commencement of this'session we voted an Address to her Majesty, in which we pledged our selves calmly and impartially to consider this great question of Parliamentary Reform. Yet the noble lord has invited us to violate our pledge and to disregard our promise. (Hear, hear, and! cries of "No !") We have invited the noble lord to meet us fairly on the question of Parliamentary Reform, and to discuss and consider our bill; and what has practically been the answer we have received ? It has been " No, we will not even entertain your bill." (" Hear, hear," and "No, no I") "We will not allow it to be discussed on the second reading," and the Government are met with a preliminary resolution by the noble lord, who, by the course he has taken, declared, "It is not my object to discuss your bill, my object is to embarrass, and, if I can, to overthrow the Administra tion." (Cheers.) He was sorry to hear the argument of Mr. S. Herbert and others. They said that there were parts of the bill which they disliked, and parts which they approved, and that they ought to condemn by a pre liminary resolution the parts of which they disapproved. If this course were applicable to the bill now before the house, there was hardly any measure brought forward to which it might not be applied. It seldom happened that any bill of great importi.nce was so drawn but that some part would be acceptable and some objectionable. (Hear.) The noblelord said the bill was dangerous and injurious, and an hon. member said it was condemned on every hustings in the country. That was rather an unfortunate statement, because the five elections which had taken place since the introduction of the bill—two of them being contested—were all in favour of the Government. (Hear.) But he had no doubt the meaning of the hon. member was that it was con demned by the country. If that argument was true, and if the measure was dangerous and noxious, as stated by the noble lord, then the proper and consistent course to adopt was to meet the bill with a direct negative, and to call on the house-to reject it altogether. (Hear.) Why did not the noble lord adopt that course ? In the first place, he disputed the accuracy of the statement that the bill had been con demned by the country. The hon. member for Birmingham and the right hon. member for Ashton said that every town and city met spontaneously to reject the bill. He had no doubt the hon. member for Birmingham collected great crowds to hear him, which was not to be wondered at con sidering his powerful eloquence and his strong political opinions ; but what did the meetings generally held prove ? and, above all, what were the demands put forward at them ? (Hear, hear.) He did not think that even the meeting in the City could be regarded as a very powerful demonstration against the bill. In the city of Worcester, with which he was better acquainted, and which contained a population of 30,000 persons, there were only 700 persons at the public meeting called on this question, and, accord ing to the Liberal paper, "there was an entire lack of enthusiasm throughout." (B ear, hear.) The resolutions passed at that meeting were in favour of a more equitable distribution of seats, equal electoral districts, household suffrage, and vote by ballot. These were the demands put forward by 700 unenthusiastic persons in a city of 30,000 inhabitants. But where was the statesman who would ven ture to make such a proposal to the house ? The noble lord knew that if he met the Government by a direct negative to the second reading he would not have succeeded, and that was the reason he adopted the course of proceeding by reso lution. (Hear, hear.) The measure of Government was safe and moderate, and if it were not so the. Government would not propose it, but at the same time it would give a considerable extension of the franchise, (Hear, hear.) It was admitted that it would add 15,000 to the list of electors in Marylebone. The hon. membei for Marylebone had told them that it would add 15,000 to that constituency. (Cheers.) Mr. EDWIN JAMES said that he referred to an obser ration of the Attorney-General for Ireland. Mr. WHITESIDE had never said anything of the sort. :Laughter.) Sir J. PAKINGTOy continued—No one would deny that it would give a very large extension of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, aware that the house would not reject the bill on the second reading, thought the only way of getting a party triumph was to move this resolu tion, and therefore he adopted that course. (Hear, hear.) But the course adopted was as ungenerous as it was irre gular. The house could not forget that the Government accepted office in an avowed minority. The noble viscount boasted of the forbearance the present Government re ceived. (Hear.) That was not the first time he had held such language, but there was nothing for which they had to thank the noble viscount. (Cheers.) The house could not have forgotten the scene which took place last year in that affair which went by the name of the " Cardwell (Cheers.) He was sorry to connect the name of his right hon. friend (Mr. Cardwell) with a scene of such discomfiture and ridicule—(hear, hear)—but remembering what was done then, and coupling it with what was passing now, how the noble viscount could claim credit to himself for forbearance surpassed in coolness of as suranee anything that came even from the lips of the noble viscount. (Cheers.) But he was willing to admit that there was a section of the liberal party opposite from whom they received a fair trial, and even generous treatment—treat ment different from that which they experienced from the noble viscount, or the noble lord the member for the City of London. It was under these circumstances that they felt it to be their duty to introduce the question of reform. It was said that they made a mistake in introducing it, but the mistake they made was in their estimate of the manner in which it had been met on the opposite side of the house. (Hear.) The Government fulfilled their duty in bringing in the bill. They could not withhold their consideration of it after what had taken place, after three preceding Go vernments had attempted to deal with it, and after having committed the sovereign to it in successive speeches from the throne. (Hear.) He would not dwell on the causes which led to the failure of the bills of 1852 and 1854, but he would ask the house to compare the conduct of the Go vernment in reference to this, question with the conduct of the noble viscount. The noble viscount volunteered pro mises and engagements to a greater extent than thepresent Government, but after a long delay, and after he left office, in answer to an hon. gentleman who was prompted by a natural curiosity to learn how far the noble viscount had gone with a Reform Bill, he told them that no Reform - Bill had been prepared. (Hear.) It might be that the atten tion of the late. Government had been diverted from the question of reform by the events which took place in India; but, at all events, the fact is that th e ' no bl e v i scoun t did not redeem his pledge, whilst the present Government re deemed their pledge, and was the only Government that proposed the second reading of a Reform Bill from the time that the subject was revived. (Hear.) How were they met by the noble viscount—how were they met by the noble lord ? Not by a consideration of the bill, not by a fulfilment of the pledge which they advised the Crown to recommend, but by a resolution which, if it meant anything, meant that the bill was to be set aside, unless they accepted it coupled with conditions which it was impossible for them to consent to. (Hear, hear.) They were told they ought to accept the resolution, and go on with the bill. The last time they heard that was from the noble viscount on Friday night, and that opinion was expressed by him, he was sorry to say, in a tone of ar rogance—(cheers)—in a tone of arrogance which was un usual between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that house. (Cheers.) And in that tone the noble viscount presumed to tell them that they were to take a line which he must know perfectly well no gentleman would con descend to take. (Cheers.) Which he must know equally well—if such advice had been offered to him—above all, if it had been offered in such a tone—he would have rejected with scorn and indignation. (Cheers.) The noble viscount went on, and there was a passage in his speech which he heard with astonishment and disapprobation—he meant that passage of his speech in which he referred to the possi bility of a dissolution. (Cheers.) He could construe that ,-passage in no other way than as an attack on the preroga tive of the Crown—(cheers)—for the language of the noble viscount was—You shall not dissolve Parliament : we the House of Commons, will prevent you ; you cannot dissolve without the concurrence of the House of Commons, and that concurrence shall be refused. (Cheers.) That was the language of the noble viscount, but it was language which he should not have expected to hear from one of his long experience and standing—(cheers)—for it was language which he considered to be wanting in due respect to the Crown and a violation of its prerogative. (Oh, oh, and loud cheers.) It exhibited an utter disregard of one of the most acknowledged prerogatives of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) And for what reason, under what pretence did the noble viscount hold such language ? He begged to say that the Government never threatened the house with a dissolution. (Oh, and hear, hear.) He challenged any one to contradict what he ssid. (Hear.) The Government could not be re sponsible for what was said out of doors. The Government did not presume to threaten Parliament in any way. All the Government said was this—and he was prepared to re peat it—that in the event of a defeat in that house, which would make it impossible for them, in their opinion, that they could, consistently with their honour and the usages of the constitution, proceed with the pubiic business, it would be their duty, as it was the duty of every Govern ment under such circumstances, to tender to the Crown such advice as they considered to be most consistent with their duty and the public interest. (Cheers.) He held that language such as that was only constitutional and becoming language ; but they never threatened Parliament with a dissolution, or said they would give that advice to the Crown, or said a word that would justify the noble vis count, apart from the unconstitutional nature of his lan guage, in addressing the Government in the terms he had done. (Cheers.) Irrespective, then, of that language and that tone, the - noble viscount must have known—the noble lord (Russell) must have known—that it was absolutely out of the question for the Government to accept the advice which the noble viscount was pleased to tender to them. (Cheers.) An hon. member, the member for Northumber land, told them that night—he did not know if he was in the secret of what was going on, but he told them, andwith perfect truth, that it was not intended, that it never had been intended, that the resolution should be accepted—that it was not drawn for acceptance--(cheers)—but that, on the contrary, it was drawn for the rejection of the Government. (Cheers.) He accepted the description of his right hon. friend (Mr. Whiteside), that it was an " offensive resolu tion." (Hear, hear.) It was drawn with the view of stop ping discussion. (Hear.) You had your fair optio n o f t wo courses. You might have met the Government in a fair, candid, and patriotic spirit. You might have said, and you ought to have said, " You (the Government) have under taken a difficult fitsl—you have approached a most difficult question--you have undertaken to legislate on a subject which every man who loves his country must feel ought promptly to be settled. We do not like your bill; there are some parts of it good, but there are otherparts which we consider objectionable. We will go into committee, we will accept what is good and reject what'is bad, and throw upon you the responsibility of the future course to be taken." (Hear.) That was one course which might have been adopted. There was another course to be taken—to adopt a course of party—(hear, hear)—he should not exaggerate if he said a course of faction—a course which out of the diffi culties of the Government would endeavour to make a party triumph. (Cheers.) That was the other course open to the noble lord opposite, and that, he was sorry to say, was the course which he determined to adopt. Let him advert to the position in which the Government now stood on this ques tion. They could not misunderstand the attempt of the noble viscount to place them in a difficulty on this question. (Hear.) There had been a systematic attempt on the part of hon gentlemen opposite—which had been carried still farther by the noble viscount—to place the Government on the horns of a dilemma—(laughter, and cries of "hear, hear")—to make them avow that they 'would stand permanently by some part of the bill, or that they would concede everything. (Hear, hear.) The Government did not intend to allow the noble viscount to place them in that dilemma. I beg to tell the noble viscount and the house (continued the right hon. baronet), in the name of the Government--(loud cries of " order")—that they have two courses open to them. They may pass the second reading of this bill, or they may pass the resolution ' • but if they pass the resolution they will not have the bill. (Loud cheers and counter-cheers.) I am sure the house will think it far better that we should come to some understanding: We don't want to have any more of this trying to entrap us. (Cheers.) There has been a great deal too much of it—a great deal more than is consistent with our position, or with fairness on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. ,(Cheers.) As my noble friend Lord Stanley has well said, we have to think what is consistent with our self-respect and with our honour. (Loud cheers.) This the language which on the part of the Government I wish to hold. We look upon the resolution as a hostile one, aid the only thing we can do is to resist it. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) When we come into committee we shall be quite ready to reconsider the question of identity or of the borough freeholder; but we will not allow ourselves to be fettered by a preliminary promise, which would be incon sistent with the, practice .of the house. (Hear, hear.) If you had met .us in a fair spirit we would have met you in the same ; but so long as this resolution is before us, we can say nothing. It is inconsistent with our duty to entertain it, and till it is disposed of we can say no more. (Cheers.) If the bill goes into 'committee, my right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) has fairly and frankly told you what will be the course of the Government; but I must say that it was needless for him to do so. I was certainly surprised to hear my right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole) taking a course which I cannot help feeling that he will be sorry for—(laughter)-- trying to entangle us in a promise.with regard to those parts of the bill which he objects to. -My right hon. friend said that if we wou ld only give Up our plan and take his he would support us; but no one is more conversant with the forms of the house than my right hon. friend, and he knows perfectly that when we get into committee--(a laugh)—it will be competent to him and my right hon. friend (Mr. Henley) to move that the county franchise be raised to£2o, and the town franchise reduced to household suffrage. (Cheers.) Nobody knows better that it is quite competent to the, house to decide those or any other questions in commit tee, and when it has decided them it will then be for us to determine what course we may consider it our duty to take. I confess that after the mode in which the Government has been met upon this occasion, and the nature of the opposi tion we have experienced, I heard with surprise - the tone of the noble viscount's language with regard to the speech of my hon. friend the Solicitor-General. For the noble vis count's private virtues nobody can have more respect than I have, but with his public conduct I have frequently been obliged to find fault, and never more than on this occasion. (Laughter.) It may be amusing to hon. gentlemen to hear that, but it is aNeclaratien of opinion which I have a right to express. I condemn and censure the course of the noble lord, and I will not shrink from saying so. We want a little more of such plain speaking in this house. (Cheers.) The conduct of our public men would be improved, and the conduct of our public affairs would likewise would be im proved, if there were a little more of this candour and truth telling. (Loud cheers.) Instead of joining in the noble lord's censure of my hon. friend (Sir H. Cairns), I thank him for the language he has used ; and no less do I thank the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud (Mr. Hors man.) That right hon. gentleman made a' speech, the abi lity :and eloquence of which were its smallest merit. We hear able and eloquent speeches in almost every one of our debates, but it is very seldom that we listen to addresses marked with the tone, the high honour—(loud cheers, and cries sf cc Oh!")—and rectit u d e w hi c h distinguished' that speech. I tell him that that speech has struck the country —(laughter and cheers)— and I thank him for it. When he spoke of the priceless honour of our public men I agreed with his sentiments, but I could scarcely go with him in all his observations. My believe is that the character of our public men is not se high as it was. (Loud cheers and laughter.) Ido not believe that the public enter tain that confidence in our statesmen—which it, once did. It sees in them too much intrigue--(cheers) too much scrambling for place—(cheers)—too much think ing of themselves, and too little of the country. (Renewed cheers.) Not the least instructive portion of this debate has been the number of remarkable confessions which have been made in the course of it. There has been, for example, the letter of Earl Grey, in which that nobl e ear l said there had been one act in his public life which should never cease to regret—namely, the part which he was induced against his own judgment to take with regard to the appropriation clause proposed by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in 1811 That clause was a party movement, the effect at which was to displace the existin g Govprath,iii to e na bl e th e no b le lord (Lord J, RIPP4011) to occupy their post. (Hear.) Then .what did the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) say? He told us that there was one act in his life on Which he should never look back but with shanlo Klf-reproach. That was also a party mov 4 e aft 1846 the effect of w hi c h was likewis e to cilepleee the existing Government and ad vance the noble lord to power. And what was the present resolution ? Is it not likewise an endeavour to siipplends Ministry; and, therefore, the noble l en. friend end and hist ant a M have no right to complain of the apee4 my h the Soliciter-Ge4eN, (Oh@ors.) ha% gentleman (Mr. Bright), continued Sir John, complained that he (the right hon. baronet) did not represent the town of Droitwich, because there were a number of country voters amongst the constituency. Mr. BRIGHT had not denied that the right hon. gen tleman represented the town of Droitwich ; but he had cer tainly pointed out that a great portion of the constituency was of a rural character. Sir J, PAKINGTON—On another occasion the hon. gentleman said that he-(the right hon. baronet) did not re present anybody, but that he returned himself. (Laughter.) Now, the fact was that out of 400 voters there were not 20 over whom he could, even if he wished to do so, exercise any direct influence. Many of the inhabitants were opposed to him in politics, but there had been no contest for 22 years; solely in consequence of the kind feeling and the good opinion which his neighbours entertained for him ; and he was as proud of his constituents as the hon. member for Birmingham, or any other member of that house, could be of his. (Hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Bright) complained that by the transfer of the borough freeholders to the boroughs the Government sought to get rid of the town ele ment in counties. The hon. gentleman was very seldom un fair, but he certainly was so on this occasion. The promo ters of the bill had had, in a sinister sense of the phrase, no " object" whatever, their only object having been to obtain a fair adjustment and a fair compromise of this long vexed question. (Cheers.) If the transfer of the borough free holders removed a town element from the counties, it was surely obvious that the £lO franchise would replace it by a far larger town element. (Hear, hear.) In 1832, the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) said that "though the towns would have a proper representation, he did not intend that they should interfere with the counties." (Hear, hear.) That was the very principle of the present bill. (Cheers.) Again, the noble lord complained that the present bill would flood the boroughs with outvoters. That was a most proper sub ject for discussion in committee, but it was absurd to say that it constituted any argument against the second read ing. It was obvious that an amendment requiring resi dence would cure the evil complained of ; and this was his (Sir J. Pakington's) answer to the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham). He must, however, s t rong l y protest against the use of the phrase "disfranchise," as applied to the pro posed change with regard to the borough freeholders. With the exception of a very few who had already votes in the borough in which they had freeholds, it was absurd to say that any would be disfranchised. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, both the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. baronet complained of the identity of suffrage; but what were their own proposals in 1854 ? In the list of franchises he found the possession of £lOO a-year from salary, £lO a-year from the funds, payment of 40s. assessed taxes or income tax, graduates of all un i vers iti es, an d £5O in the savings bank. There were five new franchises in that bill. Last year, when the hon. member for East Surrey proposed to do away with the distinction as to the occupation franchise in counties and boroughs, the right hon. baronet voted for the motion. (Hear.) Of the seven franchises proposed in the bill, five were propoSed by the noble lord. The house had assented to the principle of identity, and therefore there only remained the proposed transfer of the freeholders. A good deal had been said of the distinctive character of the franchise in counties and boroughs ; but since the passing of the Act of 1832 the • distinction had been lost. In 1851 the noble lord admitted that the Chandos clause had totally altered the character of the county franchise. The act of 1822 did with regard to borough freeholders above £lO what this bill pro posed to do with the others. If this was disfranchisement, that also was disfranchisement. The present measure only extended to other classes of freeholders a principle already adopted by the house. The extension might be imprudent, but it was absolutely consistent with former legislation. With regard to the voting papers he admitted there might be great difficulty in practice--(hear)—but if it could be carried out, it would be a most valuable proposal, and en able thousands of voters to vote who have never exercised their franchise. A remarkable feature of the recent election was the small number of electors who polled at Marylebone the other day. Out of 21,000 electors, only 10,000 voted. He believed this state of things arose from the disinclina tion on the part of many persons to encounter the turmoil and disturbance, and occasional danger of a contested elec tion, and if they could, without any danger of corrupt prac tices enable all these to vote, they would confer a great boon. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. hart. said it would lead to the ballot, but he could not see the danger of that. There was ,no secresy about the voting papers. There might be difficulty in protecting the system from abuse, but that was a question for the committee. He had been solry to hear the right hon. baron e t express an opinion opposed to the lodger franchise. He was the first statesman who had done so. He said that if they reduced the lodger franchise from Bs. to 4s. a week, they might as well go to universal suffrage at once. but why should they do so ? It would be as reasonable to say that if they reduced the occupation franchise from £lO to £1 they would come to it also. He believed the lodger franchise, though the lowest an d mos t lib eral,was also one of the safest; it would extend the franchise to a very large class, and give the nearest approach to an education fran chise which it was possible to attain. Some time ago he had a conversation on the subject of reform with a gentleman for whom he entertained the highest respect, although differing widely in opinion, Mr. Joseph Sturge, of Birmingham. Mr. Sturge said he would be very glad to compromise the question of the franchise for an education franchise; he replied he thought there would be great difficulty in applying a test. Mr. Sturge then said he would admit any man who could write his name. Ha feared the result would be that many would be able to write their names and nothing else, but he believed the lodging franchise would admit a large number of educated and most competent men, and he was sorry to fiad the right hon. baronet opposed to it ; he hoped that whenever a reform bill passed it would be included. (Hear, hear.) He would not longer detain the house. (Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to answer the argu ments which had been brought against him. He hoped, nay more, he felt sanguine, that the r eso l u ti on o f t h e noble lord, which was a most unfair mode of treating the bill, would be well beaten. (Hear, hear.) They were ready to abide the issue of the division,:fand would wait until the division of the house was taken on their proposal before they stated, what their course would be. (Cheers.) He must say it was most desirable, now the question had been broached, that it should be settled. He hoped the house would go into committee, and meet them m a fair spirit. The noble lord, by proposing his resolution, had made the concession that he dare not meet them fairly in the face. (Cheers.) The issue, howeVer, had been raised by the house; it must be decided. Let not the house, let not the country, mistake what that was. The issue was not whether they should have this bill, or entertain this bill, or whether they would pass this factious resolution. The issue for the House of Commons to dedide was whe ther it would now . grapple with this difficult question, and go into committee in a fair spirit, ready to accept what was good, and amend what was objectionable. If the house would do that, they would be able to settle this question on prindiples of safe and temperate reform ; but if they did not they would fling this great subject abroad, unsettled and uncertain, to await adjustment hereafter, not In a spirit of safe conservative reform, but of wild dervicratic innovation. Mr. GLADSTONE moved the adjournment of the de bate. The SPEAKER having put the question of the adjourn ment, Sir G. GREY said—l will avail myself, sir, of the opportunity afforded by the motion to call attention to the statement of the right tiOn. baronet who has just sat down, which it is due to you, sir, should receive the earliest possible notice of the house. The right hon. baronet states he has consulted the highest authority as to the rules and practice of the house, and he was authorised to state that the resolution proposed by my noble friend was unparliamentary and irregular. I have the best reason for believing tdat when the right hon. baro net made that statement he was under a total misappre hension of the opinion of what ought to be the highest authority. (Cheers.) I apprehend, sir, that you, sitting in that chair, are the highest authority, and if a resolution improperly framed had been placed in your wands you would have refused to put it. (Hear.) I make this state ment as I knew the right hon. baronet was under a total misapprehension as to what your opinion was. If the right hon, baron treferred to any other person, I must de precate any reference to a person whom this house does not recognise. I now, sir, lbeg respectfully to call on you to state whether this resolution is in your opinion unparlia mentary or irregular. Sir J. PAK INGTON—I am much indebted to the right hon. baronet for giving me an opportunity of explaining an expression on which he has placed a meaning very diffe rent from what he intended. I did not mean to convey that you had exaressed any opinion on the su bj ec t ; an d i f the word "hi g h es t" escaped me it was inadvertently, What I intended to say was, that as very great doubts were entertained how far the resolution was justified by precedent, I consulted the very highest authority out of doors, and I received a strong opinion that the proceeding on the part of the noble lord was, to say the least, irregular and inconsistent with the usual practice. (Cheers.) I said that it had been discussed:how far you would be justi • fled by precedent in putting such a resolution from the chair. The result was that whether in accordance with the general practice or not, it would not have been competent in you to have refused to pass the resolution. I hope that this explanation is sufficient. The SPEAKER—After the appeal that has been made to me I trust the house will permit me to say a few words on the subject of the resolution. Now, the fact is, that the power of moving resolutions in the way of amendment, in stead of having been enlarged by modern practice, has been greatly limited and restricted. It was very correctly stated by the right hon. member for Carlisle in the course of his speech, that in the early days of his Parliamentary career it was competent to a member, on the motion that the order of the day should be read, to move an amendment on any subject not relevant to the order of the day set down for discussion. That practice was most properly restricted in order to promote the conduct of the business, but if any gentleman will search the journals he will find that during the time that my immediate pre decessor occupied this chair, and he was very careful to keep the proceedings of this house within correct limits, it happened that not less than 40 or 50 resolutions in the way of amendment were put by him. It certainly would have been my duty, if the form of the resolution had been irre gular, before I put it from the chair, to have called the at tention of the house to it, and as the question has now been asked, I have no hesitation in saying that, in point of regularity, it is not possible to take exception to the form of the resolution. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BASS asked when the debate was likely to close ? THE ITALIAN QUESTION IN 1849. Lord PALMERSTON said he wished to take this op portunity of as making a very short explanation on a point on which, he understood, in the early part of the even ing Mr. Whiteside had made some remarks in reference to him. He happened not to be in the house at the time when that honourable and learned ger,Heman made a state ment as to what passed as to the affairs of Italy in 1849. He (Lord Palmerston) spoke from memory of what passed between Baron Ilummelaur and himself. The proposal which Baron Hummelaur made was that Lombardy should be created into a separate duchy in connexion with the Austrian empire. At that time the Austrian forces were out of Lombardy, and Lombardy was in possession of the Sardinian army. He said to him that the English Govern ment had no power to determine in those matters, and that all they could do was, if they were asked, to give advice to the King of Sardinia ; but he added that that was an ar rangement it would be idle to suppose that the King of Sardinia would agree to ; that it was not to be imagined that the Sardinians would vacate Lombardy, which would be in point of fact restoring the Austrian.s. Baron Hum melaur admitted the force of the argument, but he said that he was ordered to make the proposition he had; but he would go back to Vienna. and offer another arrangement, that Lombardy should be erected into an independent state, separated entirely from the Austrian empire. He said to him that that would be a great step in advance, but he should recollect that Venice and part of the Venetian territory were at that moment in a state of independence, that armies were marching to assist tho King of Sardi n i a, for the purpose of entirely freeing Northern Italy from Austrian domination, EVENING, MARCH 29, 1859, and that he thought it very unlikely that any arrangement would be accepted which did not include in it some portion of the Venetian territory, and he stated that he did not think the King of Sardinia could for his own honour accept an arrangement which would leave him in possession of greater dominions, and leave the Venetians to be restored again to the dominion of Austria. Baron Hummelaur said he would go to Vienna to make a suggestion to his government, and he went away. But before anything could be done on these propositions things in Italy took a different turn, and Ans" tria having reconquered Lombardy by force of arms deter. mined by force of arms to retain it. Mr. WHITESIDE said the statement of the noble lord did not in the least affect the truth of the statement that h a had made. It was a very important subject, and the house could well conceive that it was not well that the destinies o a kingdom should be allowed to rest on vague converts' tions. The facts were these :—Lord Ponsonby apprised the noble lord by advices communicated from Vienna that the royal house of Austria were willing to give up Lombardlt provided a fair settlement was made as to the national debt, and the noble lord was afterwards apprised that Baron Hummelaur would come to England to make these pre" posals. The noble lord had corrected his memory. As to the first proposal, there was an elaborate state paper that Lombardy should have a separate administration and na tional army and government that would be acceptable to the people. Parma was to go with it, and the whole was to be governed by an Austrian viceroy. He believed it to be perfectly true that the noble lord objected to that arrange ment ; and what was important was that Baron Huraine" laur wrote down that objection, with a formal statemen t that the result of his interview with the noble lord ha d made such an imp ress i on upon him that he thought it right', to state the principles, the basis, on which a new arrange ment might be made, and he said, "I enclose you in thie letter the statement of these principles;" and the first pea' sage in that letter was the -settlement made that Lombardy should be entirely free—free to choose its own govern ment—if England would undertake to settle the affairs of Italy on that principle; that as to Venice the same terms would not be granted, but that Venice should have $ separate administration and army. The noble lord took from the 24th of May to the 2nd of June to consider the offer. On the 3rd of June the baron came to London to receive his answer. He wrote an elaborate reply, a nd that reply admitted that Lombardy was to , have a separate ad" ministration, but that the financial , question w as to be thrown into the arrangement. That was refused. Austria then proceeded to assert her right by force of arms, and a t the end of August following the noble lord wrote a letter to the Marquis of Normanby that he would then be Will iug to consent to the arrangement which was made on the 24th of May. He was answered that it was too late. I t was too late now, and it would be too late in the future. THE DEBATE ON THE REFORM BILL. Sir G. C. LEWIS, reverting to this subject, said, as they had already had five nights of this debate, they might come to an understanding that it sh ou ld be finished to-mor row night. [A VOICE—To-morrow week.] (Laughter.) Major EDWARDS th oug ht it would be a very hard ease if members were not allowed to say a few words to justify themselves before their constituents. Mr. COBBETT had attended diligently throughout this discussion, and h a d w i s h e d to address the house but had not had an opportunity of doing so . (H ear, hear. ) It had been his desire to contend that the bill should be read a second time. His hon. colleague, he believed, differed from him in that respect, and he thought it was but fair that he should have an opportunity of stating to the house his Iva' sons for taking the course he intended to take. Sir E. PERRY was also one of the small guns that had been charg e d d ur i ng the last two nights, and had not had an opportunity of going off. He was bound to say that, ag the debate had gone on, he had found hour by hour that the points he had intended to dwell upon had been taken up 1 1 others ; and therefore, with the modesty which ou ght t• belong to him, he was willi ng t o l et the debate come to a close without intruding his opinions. Mr. HUDSON thought the hon. gentleman was not very eminent for his modesty. (Laughter.) He wished to ask the house whether this was part of the system which the noble lord wished to exercise over the house on Friday nights ? whether he was now beginning to exercise a tyranny over the house ? He was willing to stop till Christ' mas—(laughter)—but h e intended to have anopportunitY speaking. Mr. CONOLLY thought that as the subject was one of such universal interest the d e b a t e oug h t not to be hurried,,, a conclusion. Mr. WESTHEAD said as the city of York, which he,. represented, co n t a i ne d 1 ,100 county voters, he could 210 forego his claim to be heard in explanation of his views. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had enter" tabled an earnest expectation that the debate would close on the following day—(cheers) —but he must say that the! was a subject and an occasion for consulting the g eneral feeling of the house , and he had no w i s h to press f or the termination of the debate in opposition to that feeling' (Cheers.) There seemed to be an equal indisposition on 0 0 two sides of the house that the debate should close the neat day, and he would not, therefore, press for its termination, although he was prepared for it if the house desired that it should terminate. (Hear, hear.) Mr. P. O'BRIEN said up to that time not a single Irish member had spoken. (Great laughter.) The debate was then adjourned. The Savings-bank (Ireland) Act Continuance Bill passed through committee. The Common Rights, &c. ( War Department) Bill passe d through committee. The Nottingham Charities Bill was read a third time and passed. The Petitions of Rights Bill was read a third time and passed. The Affidavits by Commissioners Bill was read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at ten minutes to one. COUNTRY MARKETS. STAMFORD—MARcH . 26. Yesterday there was a limited sho* of wheat, and a slot detnand, in consequence of the farmers asking 2s to 3s ad ,.Tance. 'White samples realised 42s to 458; red, 38s to 40s per 36 stone. Bbarley of superior quality 'made previous rates, malting of the best description selling at 40s ; grinding 28s to 30s. In oats there was very little change, the prices ranging from 26s to 30s per 24 stone. Beans scarce and at high rates, namely, 44s to 50s:per 38 stone. COLCHESTER—MAR= 26. We had fair supplies of all descriptions of grain to-day) and wheat met a more active sale at is to 2s per qr. over late rates. No change is made in the prices of any other article. Wheat, white ....40s to 45s I Beans, Mazagan — s t o —l 4 red ...... 36 s t o 39s Middle & small 40s to 44e Barley .......... 388 to 40s Whit e p eas 38 s to 4 7 s Oats lBs to 24s I Grey.. —s to —4 DERBY—MARCH 26. At this corn market yesterday there was a small supply of wheat, which was in good condition, but sales heavy at 11 over the rates of last week. Barley was in small supply, and fine samples were in request. There was not much doing in oats, and prices were without change. Beans firm, and rather dearer. White wheat, new, 40s to 48s Red do. 3Bs to 42s Old white 4os to 48s Red do. 38s to 42s Barley, malting.— 36s to 42s Barley, grinding 27s to 29s Oats, old, .. 2Bs to 32a New do —s to ---3 Beans. 44s to 50s Peas ... . —s to --3 KIRKA. Wti had small supplies sales ready, and prices in Wheat (N). First.... 34s Od Second.. 42s 6d Third 46s Od Wheat (0). First.... —s Od Second.. —s Od Third —s Od LDY—MARCH 26. of wheat, oats, and barley to-day; favour of sellers. Barley (N). 25s Od. 32s Od 34s 6d Barley (0). —8 Od —s Od Od Oats (N). 18s Od 24s Od 27s Od Oats (0). —s Od —s Od —s dO COAL MARKET—MAncn 28. (Price's of Coal per Ton at the close of the market.) s. d. Walls End. • s. d. Trimdon Thornley 13 6 Tees. 17 0 Kelloe l5 9 South Kelloe ,.16 6 Whitworth, l4 0 Caradoc l6 Bron .14 0 , H y etton. ' l7 0 Acorn Close 14 0 Lambton 17 0 Fate l4 0 Walls End. Powell's ramwel D lg uffryn Steam 21 0 South Hartlepool 15 0 Coundon 13 9 Haswell l7 0 Cassop Brandon l6 0 Gosforth 13 6 Heugh Hall 14 0 West Hetton ,16 0 Benson 14 0 Eden.. 14 3 Ships at market, 111—Sold, 65. Byass's Bebside West Hartley _ls 3 Davison's West Hart- ley 15 3 Ward's West Hartley l4 3 Lambert's West Hart ley Wylam l4 0 Tanfield Moor 11 0 Tanfield Moor Butes 11 0 Walker Primrose 11 0 BIRTHS. BEAUMONT.—On the 27th inst., at Cole Orton Hall, Lei cestershire, the wife of Sir George H. Beaumont, Bart., of a daughter. BROWNING.—On the 28th inst. at 47, Sussex-gardens B. t Hyde-park, the wif e o f Henry Browning, Esq., of a son. B URN - MURDOCH.—On the 26th inst., at 6, Park-terrace, Cambridge, the wife of James M. Burn-Murdoch, Esq., late 10th H ussars and Cara bi neers , o f a son. DENT.—Grove, On the 28th inst., at the Ea the wife of Mr. S. D en t, o f a d aug hter. WATsoN.—On the 27th inst., at Wratting-p ar k, Cam bridgeshire, Lady Watson, of a daughter. MARRIAGES ALGER—LLOYD.—On the 24th inst., at St. Andrew's, Holborn, Owen T. Alger, Esq., of Bedford-row, to Catherine, widow of the late Edward L. Lloyd, Esq., of Upper Brook-street, Grosvenor-square. LAING—SCARBOROUGH.--0/1 the 19th inst., at St. Mary, 's Haggerstone, Robe r t L a i ng, Esq., of Manor-house, Hag gerstone, to Jane, widow of John Scarborough, Esq., of Tokenhouse-yard, Lothbury, and Dalston. DEATHS. Cum!'Ns —On the 24th inst., at Gravesend, after lauding from the ship Coldstream on the Ist, R. Y. Cummins, EN., late A ss i s t ant C olon i al Secretary, Mauritius, aged 43. DOWBE.—On the 4th ult., on route to Mooltau, Surgeon R. R. Dowse, 70th Regt., aged 42. PERnorr.—On the 24th inst., at Plumstead, Kent, Sir E. B. Perrott, Bart., aged 74. TEMPLE.—On the 25th inst., at Leamington, the Rev. W. S. Temple, rector of Dimsdale, Durham, aged 71. WRlonr.—On the 26th inst., at Margate, James Edward Wright, Esq., solicitor. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the co un ty of Middlesex, Tuesday, March 29, 1859. Messr bar Mr. Londe Shefffi Leeds Livers buil; Minot Bristo The stone, cent. tx tended relied By tl Inortzs be calls second will be Full of Mes the cak in the had at tors an addres! W' Notic SHAM DAY n ll° on beha underts the gtal hold W , flounce with th Marc] pop (eci SHERI 245. per Dozens Import( blished 'I EI ] Dozen. I I P7N 1 per Gall HEN] Stronge Dozen. _____ Packa In. per c paid. Count Gray's 1 IT A] -Li- 1 January tifyi ng Gas Eco butes th great al saving 0 being bl combust soils thi Dear Sh "To 3 CER Di pared wi Scott, of liver, in, tite, low Without Without and pim rate the Is. 14d. Ilillous Package, on the (IR] r 11edaa HERRI 15s. Gr Patent Basingh Illustrat Remedy GL AND Pit T wC pe should ( food. W season. led. Pi; flesh Inc treat ad city of t it. Ap, Testimo cultnrist 448 feed'E Railway Payable N.B.— by wort] THE A N] PERK qiseases blotches 48. 6d., To be London, It and L ON DE New F. tomical TITI and the With ohs lions l valuab It, and L lane, Pa Loudon UNI LA) DAI be rc Cont Viet shall Twel Thre cant] recei anyl purp said Er Adm der, f Place Regis by out Depo no; ren ma John Uni Henr, Will, F. R. Robei Iroi John squ Wm. She Messy Willi: Office