The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

balance of evil and advantage. As to discussion by juries, it was assumed that this change would put an end to it. He did not see why it should. The ground on which he supported the second reading was, that two successive commissions having recommended a change, it showed such a change was in harmony with the feeling of the country. It was said that juries were becoming too apt to think for themselves, but that was only part of the change in societ y which was caused by the growth of i n telligence and education which caused every one to think for him self. He believed that trial by jury was an essential part of the constitution of the country, and caused every man to feel an interest in the administration of justice. In his experience the discharge of their duties by jurymen raised them in the scale of intelligence. He did not think the bill tended to do away with trial by jury, but rather made it more permanent than it was in its present form. Lord WENSLEYDALE, who was nearly inaudible, was understood to oppose the bill : The judges had no authority at common law to discharge juries, and in this respect he would be glad to see the law altered. Lord KIN G SDOWN supported the bill. The main objec tion to it was that it proposed to tamper with a system which had existed for many hundred years. If it did propose to impair the important institution of trial by jury, no one would more strongly object to it than he would; but he be lieved it would tend rather to improve, and by improving to p e tuate it. When every other institution of the country rpe a a d in the course of ages been found to require amendment and reform, it would be a little singular if this one alonewere found to be perfect and infallible. He regarded the practice of requiring unanimity in juries as a defect in the system and a relic of the barbarous age in which it arose, and quoted Paley as to the absurdity of taking twelve men promiscu ously and expecting them to be unanimous upon any ques tion, perhaps a question of great difficulty, in respect to which lawyers and judges might differ, and locking them up until they were agreed or were starved into a seeming agreement. The commissioners of 1854 stated that the very reason why unanimity was desirable was a reason why that unanimity should be real and not apparent. By the present system the supposed unanimity was a fraud — they did not obtain the opinions of the majority of the jury only, but possibly of the minority, or even of a single jury man, who might, either from conviction or from partisan ship with one or other of the parties in the suit, determine upon starving his fellow-jurymen into submission. There were some men of very peculiar opinions. Some thought all criminals lunatics ; others that no conviction ought to take place in offences against the game laws. When such persons were upon juries, the greatest difficulty was often experienced in vindicating justice. By allowing the majority to give a verdict, this evil would be remedied. He urged their lordships to give a second reading to a bill the principle of which had been long in successful opera tion in Scotland. Lord CAMPBELL, in reply, said that no answer had been given to the arguments which he had advanced. in support of the bill. Whatever the result, he should think it his duty to take the sense of the house. Their lordships accordingly divided. For the second reading 23-16 Against it The bill was thus thrown out. VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL. The report of amendments was received. EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION BILL. The reports of amendments were received. Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to 10. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SrEARzn took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The London and North. Western Railway (Edgehill to Garston) Railway, and the Red Sea and India Telegraph Company (No. 2) Bills were read a third time and passed. The Mersey Dock and Harbour Railway Bill was considered and ordered for third reading. The Mid Wales Railway Bill, after some discussion, was read a second time, and ordered for third reading, as well as the Scarborough Gas Bill. STEAM SERVICE BETWEEN GALWAY AND AMERICA. Mr. HORSFALL gave notice that on Tuesday neat he Would call the attention of the house to this subject. IMPORTATION OF,OPIUM INTO JAPAN. Sir E. PERRY ffiVihtd of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Aifiirs if there was any provision in the treaty with Japan to prohibit the importation of opium into this country; and if any steps had been taken to prevent it.' Mr. S. FITZGERALD Said that by the treaty means were adopted to restrain the trade in question. OFFICERS OF THE LAND TRANSPORT CORPS. Gen. CODRINGTON asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the offer of additional rank lately acknow ledged as due to certain officers of the Land Transport Corps, it was made a condition that they should repay to the Treasury part of their full pay, issued to them in the years 1857 and 1858, for duty actually done with their regiments in their present rank ? General PEEL said that an equitable arrangement had been made with reference to the officers alluded to. TENDERS FOR PAPER TO GOVERNMENT. Mr. COWAN asked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government had given its deliberate sanction to the proceedings of the Board of Inland Revenue, in having re cently issued advertisements inviting tenders for the supply of 1,250 reams .f writing paper of an unusually large size to be manufactured by the said board into postage enve lopes, such tenders to be lodged not later than the 31st current, and the said board not being bound to accept the lowest tender ; also, if there was any reason why any paper required by the public should not be received through the Stationery-office at the lowest price tendered, with ade quate security for the due fulfilment of the contract, and, after due examination, accepted or rejected as might be ? Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the subject was under consi deration. CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL. In reply to a question, Sir J. TRELAWNY said he was ready to postpone the further stage of this bill till next week, but he trusted a day would be given him to proceed with it. THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he would not be able to appoint any day for that purpose. He would take that opportunity of referring to the debate of 1 ast night, and stating that in his opinion it was desir able that the discussion should be put an end to. (Hear.) He had no desire but to meet the views of the hen. mem bers of that house. He was placed in a situation of very great responsibility, and he had received a number of communications from members on both sides of the house, and though he did not wish to interfere with the rights of hon. members to address the house, yet he trusted that the house would come to a vote on Thursday evening. (Hear, hear.) POSTAL SUBSIDIES, &c. (CANADA, &c.) Mr. WYLD moved for an address for copies of the ad dress from both branches of the Legislature of Canada to her Majesty, relative to Postal Subsidies and the Intercolo nial Railway, and of the correspondence between the dele gates from Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, and her Majesty's Government, relative to the Intercolonial Railway from Halifax to Quebec.—Agreed to. AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ACT AMENDMENT. Viscount RAYNHAM moved for leave to bring is a bill to amend the act 16 and 17 Vic., c. 21, for the punishment of men convicted of aggravated assaults on women and children.—Agreed to. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT AMENDMENT. Viscount RAYNHAM moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Act 13 and 14 Victoria, for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals.—Agreed to. Mr. G. HARDY obtained leave to bring in a bill to in demnify such persons in the United Kingdom as had omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for those purposes respec tively. EAST INDIA DESPATCHES. Sir E. PERRY moved an address for copy of financial despatches between the Government of India and the Secre tary of State for India, respecting new loans required for India (in continuation of Parliamentary papers, Nos. 55 and 69, of the present session). And of all notifications of the Government of India concerning the public debt (in continuation of Parliamentary papers).—Agreed to. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. The adjourned debate was resumed by . . Mr. GLADSTONE, who said—lt appears to me, sir, that there are other remarkable features in this debate be sides the great ability with which it has been conducted, and among them all I know none so remarkable as e sin gular ac cor d ance of opinion On both sides of the hot se—l may say, with the exce pti on o f o ffi c i a l spea k ers , amon all i \ those who ha ve spo k en—with respect to the great quest n of Parliamentary Reform. (Hear, hear.) I do: not say that there are no shades of difference upon it, but when we compare the opinions of those who are disposed to give the least with the opinions —at any rate, so far as they have been avowed—of those who are disposed to give the most, we find they lie within such moderate and reasonable limits as to afford, one would hope, the very beat prospects for an early and satisfactory settlement of the question. (Cheers.) In point of fact, sir, 1 may venture to say that there is no difference perceptible—l do not refer now to the particular features of the present bill, but to the general question of Reform—between the speakers on the two sides of the house ;thed were a member of this ouse blindfolded during debate, I would almost defy him to say from what quarter their addresses respec tively had come. (Hear.) It is recorded of the oldest tra veller whose voyages have come down to us that he ar r i ve d at a place so remote that he lost all power of judging of the points of the compass, and the same observation is appli. cable to the present debate on the subject of reform, with the single difference that, instead of its being at a place immeasurably remote, the point where our differences are lost sight of is in the centre of the British House of Com mons. (Hear, hear.) Again, I could not help being struck with what fell from my hon. friend the member for Bir mingham upon this subject. He selected, in the course of his speech, one address from those which had preceded his own for commendation, andthree—shall I say for anathema or for censure ? The speech which he commended was the speech of a county member on this side of the house—l mean the hon. member for Dorset—a gentleman, I believe, of unsuspected orthodoxy in his political creed. (A laugh.) The speeches which were censured by my hon. friend—the speeches which he said filled hire with alarm—were the declarations of three right hon. friends sitting on the other side of the house. (Hear, hear.) He was alarmed at the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud; he did not say for what particular reason, but I concluded because he regard e d my right hon. friend a disorderly per son upon the present occasion. (A laugh.) He was alarmed at the speech of my right hon. friend the member for South Wilts, because-I suppose my right hon. friend gently suggested in one portion of his excellent address that that chamber in the mind of my hon. friend the member for Bir mingham which ought to be supplied with a certain rever ence for ancient traditions is less well furnished than all the rest of that remarkable structure. (Cheers and laughter.) Then, sir, the hon. member, still adhering to his'own side of the house, censured likewise the sagacious letter of my right hon. friend the member for Coventry. There the rea son, I think, wasplain enough—because myrighthon. friend, whose hospitalities are proverbial, in that letter promised to his constituents a magnificent banquet of reform, where the viand was dressed in every possible shape, but con aided by exprettsiDg W Piga tit as 4canzt cd the state of public opinion they could not just yet sit down. (Cheers and laughter.) The truth is, sir, there is no sub stantial difference of opinion traceable to differen es in this house between political parties upon this grea and tran- scendant subject; and therefore it is to me a m ter of deep regret that, when there is such union of sentim , nt upon the questions at issue, we should be ranged in ostile debate —(cheers)—with a division before us whi must tend to estrange from one another those who are nob separated by clear, broad, conscientious differences of opinion, and by whose united efforts alone this great subject can be brought to a satisfactory settlement. (Continued cheering.) I can not help also venturing a remark upon the form of the reso lution proposed by my noble friend the member for the city. It is a remark which will be, I trust, in entire harmony both with the letter and with the spirit of your own decision, be: cause I am certain that my noble friend would have been the last man to propose an irregular resolution. But if the resolution is regular and Parliamentary, I venture to sug gest that it is one to which exception may be taken on the grounds of general prudence and convenience. (Hear, hear.) The rules of this house, it is true, do much towards keeping the course of public business within its legitimate bounds, but also much, of necessity, must depend on the judgment of the members of the house. (Hear, hear.) I take it that there is a meaning in the rules of the house when they pro vide that on the presentation of any scheme of legislation in the form of a bill the duty of the house should be to address itself to the scheme as a whole, that the house should then, and then only, proceed to deal with the details. (Cheers.) I do not enter into the question whether resolutions ought ever to be made on the second reading of bills. I confess it appears to me utterly impossible to exclude them, be cause if they were altogether excluded this house would be shorn of much of its legislative power, and be reduced to the necessity o f sa ying nothing but simply "aye" or " no" on a motion. (Hear.) Nor do I deny that there are precedents of some kind which to a certain extent may be pleaded in support of the present resolution, but I ex press my own opinion, as far as my own opportunities o knowledge go, that this is the first occasion on which a reso lution has been moved on the second reading of a bill, the purport and matter of which resolution consists simply in dealing with certain portions of the bill, which portions might be dealt with in committee. (Cheers.) To that extent it appears to me that this resolution may be termed a I novelty, and I must add that it is an inconvenient novelty. (Hear, hear.) How are measures, of necessity, very fre quently framed ? It is often the duty of the G overnment to combine in one and the same measure a great variety of propositions, the whole of which—l am not now speaking of the present bill, but of what is the general duty of the Government—the whole of which, I repeat, may be neces sary to the complete attainment of the public ends in view. Yet one portion of these propositions may be highly popular and the other portion may be the subject of popular preju dice. There may be a great temptation from time to time, particularly in the disorganised state of political parties, to select out of the measure so presented those portions which are unpopular, and to insist on procuring the judgment of the house on those unpopular parts of the bill antecedently to the second reading. I frankly own, however, that I cannot conceive any practice which, if it grew up, would be more inconvenient or dangerous. (Cheers.) I confess that these are reasons which weigh with me to no inconsiderable extent in bringing me to the conclusion that I cannot sup port the bill—l mean the resolution, but I might say the bill likewise. (Hear, and a laugh.) The course taken by my noble friend the member for London has been sub jected to great severity of attack, which I frankly own it does not appear to me that he deserves. (Hear, hear.) It is said that my noble friend has made a factious motion. If it be a factious motion, it is certainly a very ill chosen one, because, taking the two great exponents of the resolution who bring the greatest power to its sup port, they have fairly avowed that, while they concur in the resolution, they differ as to the course it may immediately involve. The noble lord the member for Tiverton has ex plicitly stated to the house that he supports the resolu tion, not for the sake of getting rid of the bill, but as a foundation on which alone he can conscientiously consent to support the second reading ; while the noble lord the mem ber for London, so far from interposing this resolution as a condition which once being laid down may enable him to accept the second reading of the bill, has, in language very distinct, stated that he trusted that not only will this reso lution be carried—as appears likely to be the case—but that there will be successive attacks on the bill until—l think these were his words—it should be, if not immedi ately, at last totally rejected. These different declarations proceeding from the two noble lords do not certainly imply any deeply laid plot for a joint attack on the present occu pants of office with a view to a joint occupation of place afterwards. (Laughter.) I cannot part from this part of the subject without expressing, particularly after what has fallen from the First Lord of the Admiralty, the deep re gret with which I heard an hon. gentleman—and a gentle man of the distinguished character, eminence, and abilities of her Majesey's Solicitor-General—spoil an effective speech by dropping, at the close of it, words which were not worthy of this house or of his position. (Cheers.) lam convinced that those words must have proceeded from a rhetorical in advertence—from the necessity, if 1 may presume to any so of always finishing a sentence, which occasionallypresses in an inconvenient manner even on the most experienced and practised speakers. I cannot believe that those words were intended to be used, and I am confident that before the de bate is over the hon. and learned gentleman will, in a man ner worthy of himself and in a way due to the character of the noble lord the member for London, express his regret for the observations to which I now allude. (Cheers.) What I now wish to say to the house is that the paramount and overbearing motive in my mind which governs my vote, and I hope every word that I speak, is that it becomes our duty to take that course which will most contribute to the early and satisfactory settlement of this question, and if I had seen through the resolution of my noble friend the prospect of a powerful Government, and a combination of men ready to carry through a measure of reform not immoderate in its form,—and no immoderate measure should I expect from my noble friend,—that would have been a reason with me for supporting the resolution. If we could have had a strong Government for the purpose of working this question by all means let us have that Government. But far from feeling an inducement to vote for the resolution, a circumstance that operates in a contrary direction is that I find the lead ing men prominent in support of the resolution have an agreement of opinion limited to the terms of the motion itself, and that the day subsequent to the success of the resolution would see them pursuing their distinct and oppo site courses. (Cheers.) I have ventured to state the motive on which I think our conclusion on this subject should be grounded, and I now ask what is the position of the Govern ment with respect to the bill and with respect to the house. I cannot deny that the first cause of these embarrassments, so far as I am able to perceive, is the most unfortunate error committed by the Government in the construction of their bill in opposition to the wise advice of two most dis tinguished members of the Cabinet. (Cheers.) I believe that the Government is now as well aware as any gentleman who sits on either side of the house that in all probability, if they had taken the wise advice of their two late colleagues, while their counsels were still unknown to the public, and had presented a plan framed on the basis of the suggestions of those right hon. gentlemen, the bill would then have met with very general acceptance. (Hear, hear.) This is, however, referring to the past, and the Government now are responsible for the bill as it stands before us. We also are responsible for what we do with respect to the bill ; and therefore the question I have to ask myself is not whether the Government have presented a plan in every point such .as I, for one, could have desired ; but in what manner I can meet the embarrassments created, and find, if possible, an escape from them. The Government in the first place, are the existing Government, and, as such, have a claim on the House of Commons in a state of things wherein it is not very clear, if the Ministers are removed from office, who are to succeed them. (Hear, hear.) It is further quite evident that the Govern ment have some facilities for the settlement of this question which no other Government could possess, in the fact that probably unless the present Government had been in office we should not have had that remarkable accordance of opinion on the subject of reform. (Laughter.) I do not say that hon. gentlemen have spoken otherwise than ac cording to their conscientious cpinions ; but the fact of having their political friends in office tendetl undoubtedly to induce a conciliatory disposition. (Hear, hear.) But I must also freely admit that I think the claimof the Govern ment may be carried a point further. I think that a Re form Bill having been submitted to the house, and the second reading of that bill having been proposed, they have a claim on those members of the house—and I am one of them—who have been parties to former miscarriages and disappointments, that they shall do nothing beyond what is absolutely necessary to intercept the progress of this bill. (Cheers.) I confess it appears to me that, although the feeling of the people of this country with respect to the proceedings of the House of Commons is eminently satis factory,—although, as the hon. member for Birmingham has so well said, they have begun, especially of late years to entertain a warm sentiment both of gratitude and confi dence in the authority and institutions of the country, and particularl in their representative assembly,—yet I doubt whether at part of that gratitude or confidence is due to the manner in which we have recently treated the subject of Parliamentary reform. (Cheers.) There is not, so far I as I know ' a word of blame to be said of any ; and certainly if the re is blame to any one, I myself, as the colleague of lily noble friend during a portion of these transactions, must c(2"13_,1 then in for my sh are . B u t l e t us l oo k a t w h a t h as passe d, andaspect which it mustnecessarilypresent to a criticise mg public. I n 185 1 my a in a htll.noble friend, then the first Minister of the Crown, a p proached the question of reform, and com tmerewneaerdds7rith in 1 a 1 7 1 2 he broughtiseofwht wasto b , e a d n o d n done t l d 2 i samonthsppear disappeared. together with the Ministry. (A laugh.) In 1853 we had the Ministry of Lord Aberdeen, which commenced with a promise of reform in 12 months' time. Well, 1854 arrived • with it arrived the bill, but with it al so arr i ve d th e war ' and in the war was a r eason , and I belie ve a goo d reason , for abandoning the bill. Then came the Government of my noble friend the member for Tiverton, which was not less unfortunate in the circumstances which pre ven t e d th e redemption of those pledges that had been given to the people from the mouth of the Sovereign on the Throne. In 1855 my noble friend escaped all responsibility for a Reform Bill on account of the war; in 1856 he escaped all responsibility for reform on account of the peace—()oud laughter and cheering)—in 18-57 he escaped that inconve nient responsibility by the dissolutiori of Parliament ; an d in 1858 he escaped again by the dissolution of his Govern ment. (Renewed laughter and cheers.) Well, each of these may be good reasons why Parliament has not dealt with the question of reform ; but I put it to the inipartial considera tion of hon. gentlemen whether upon the whole, if there be a portion of the people out of doors who think the house is reluctant or sincere with respect to reform, a series of events like these don't strengthen such misgivings—(cheers) — and don't render it additionally hazardous on our part to interpose any obstacles except those which necessity im peratively requires to the progress of a bill which, at all events, corresponds with the promise of the Sovereign on the Throne in the general terms in which it was conveyed, and which is now presented to us in such a form as to afford us, I think, great hope of carrying to completion a measure which may , take its place in our Statute-book. (Cheers.) T confess I think that the appeal to members of former Govt eats, a$ viett and as atatewaola, to mitt is so far tuencies and the favourites of the nation. (Cheers.) It can not be denied that whatever advantages have attended our Parliamentary reforms, we have latterly by what we have done narrowed the means of ingress to the House of Com mons. (Hear.) What chance would there be for any of the six men I have mentioned, at the age of 21 or 22, under the as it is in their power the progress of the Reform Bill in troduced by the present Ministry is a topic and a plea which ought to have some considerable weight. It must be remembered, however, that the resolution of the noble member for the City has been supported by many hon. gentlemen, including my right hon. friend the member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), as being not an unusually severe and stringent method of interference with the course of the bill ; but, on the contrary, a singularly mild one, and as a milder measure than a negative upon the second reading. But when we are administering our measures of mildness, and especially when they are almost entirely novel in their form, it is of some importance to consider in what manner they will be received by the patient—(laughter and cheers) —and on this occasion the patient is so reluctant and refrac tory that, instead of accepting the recommendations of the noble lord the member for Tiverton—instead of acquiescing in the view that this is merely a gentle caveat put in on the part of the house lest it should be overborne and suppressed by the strength of the Government in committee—the Go vernment who are to receive and acquiesce in this resolu tion have treated it as a resolution which not only is not milder than a negative upon the second reading, but which stigmatises both their bill and themselves in such a manner as to make it impossible for them to accept it. (Cheers.) It is utterly useless to inquire whether the Government are right or wrong in that view of the matter, but. the impor tant fact for us to consider is that they have announced that if the resolution be passed their bill cannot proceed. The question, therefore, comes to be whether, upon the whole, we think it is for the interest of the country in connection with the great subject of reform that the bill should go into committee, or that it should not go into committee. If the resolution passes, the second reading of the bill cannot be proposed by the Government. If the resolution fails, the second reading will be proposed, and, while I anticipate that the resolution of my noble friend will be carried, it appears equally clear from what has occurred, and from what has been said by my noble friend the member for Tiverton, that if we proceed to the question of the second reading that proposition will be carried, and that there will be an opportunity of dealing with the bill in committee. I want to know, therefore, what are the clauses of the bill itself ; and I begin by frankiy admitting that I concur, I am sorry to say, in very nearly everything that has been said against the bill. (Cheers, and a laugh.) I have something to say pre sently upon a point which has been very little touched upon, but I must admit that I concur in the objections to the bill which have been raised as prominently on this (the Ministerial) as on the other side of the house. I concur in the objections which have been taken by the noble member for Tiverton and by the noble member for the city. I can not be a party to the disfranchisement of the county free holders residing in boroughs. I cannot be a party to the uniformity of the franchise. I cannot be a party to a Re form Bill which does not lower the suffrage in boroughs. (Cheers.) I may go a step further, and say it appears to me that the lowering of the suffrage in boroughs is the main purpose of having a Reform Bill—(Opposition cheers) —and that unless we are to have that lowering of the suf frage it would be better that we should not waste our time on this subject. (Cheers.) But, while I concur entirely in these objections, I must make a concession on the part of the bill, in which I shall follow, though rather fully, what was stated by my noble friend the member for Tiver ton. I think I understood him correctly to say in his able speech that he approved generally of that portion of the bill relating to the redistribution of seats. I think I did not misunderstand him, but that he approved generally of that portion of :the plan. (Lord Palmerston intimated his as sent.) I did not understand the noble member for the city of London to object to that portion of the bill, nor did I un derstand that my right hon. friend near me (Sir J. Graham) objected to it, but that feature of the measure has been very generally passed over in silence, and I own that I think less than justice has been done to the bill in that respect. I feel bound in honour to say that upon the whole I cannot help approving that portion of the bill. (Cheers.) I think that it is an improvement upon the measure to which I was my self a party in 1854. This is no small or trifling matter. (Cheers.) In point of fact, the question of the redistri bution of seats is full half of your whole Reform Bill. (Cheers.) The redistribution of seats and the ar rangement of the franchise make up the measure. I will endeavour to explain frankly and fearlessly the rea sons why I think that upon the whole this bill has been framed wisely with respect to the re-distribution of seats. I believe the bill we introduced in 1854 would infallibly— to use a homely phrase—have " gone to the dogs," on ac count of the extent of disfranchisement it proposed. (Hear, hear.) We may throw out this bill, and we may have another bill brought in which proposes to disfranchise 60, 70, or 80 boroughs, but won't such a proposal be strongly opposed by the 60, 70, or 80 members who hold seats for those boroughs? I listened with great attention the other night to the speech of the hon. member for Sandwich, who has given us fair notice what course he intends to pursue. He has told the noble lord below him that he is perfectly willing to join with him for the purpose of destroying the bill of the Government, but when his noble friend has suc ceeded to power and introduced his bill the hon. member for Sandwich anticipates that his noble friend will again bind him and lay him on the altar. (Laughter.) Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN said the disfran chisement of Sandwich had never been proposed, except by the hon. member for Birmingham. Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The hon. gentleman would, no doubt, be prepared to show strong reasons, not why other boroughs should not be disfranchised, but why Sandwich should be retained. (Laughter.) If an extensive measure of disfranchisement was insroduced, 60, or 70, or 80 votes of the representatives of the boroughs proposed to be disfranchised would be combined in the division; and what would become of the Reform Bill introduced with a magnificent scheme for the redistribution of seats ? I must frankly own it appears to me that to proceed far in the disfranchisement of small boroughs is a course injurious to the efficiency of the House of Commons. You must not consider in this matter the question only of the electors. You must consider quite as much who are likely to be the elected. (Hear.) And permit me to say that the time has come when, in the examination of any scheme of reform, it is of vital and capital importance that this matter should be brought fully under the view of the house. Let me point out that the Reform Bill of 1832 has not, in this respect, been fairly and fully tried. For 27 years, it is true, it has been in operation, and it has communicated great vigour to the working of the legislative machine. For the first 10 or 15 years of that period the working of the re formed Parliament exhibited a union of power, circum spection, and sagacity such as it would be difficult to find an equal to in the history of legislative assemblies. But look at the advantages which attended the first working of this change in our representation. It is true we had a new elec toral system, but we had the old statesmen to work it. (Hear, hear.) Read the admirable argument of Lord Macau lay in his " History of William lII.' upon the state of the House of Commons at that time, before you had organised the system under which Ministries are constituted and maintained in this country. The House of Commons was then an assembly of units incapable of forming into one body and of workinc , together. Why is it that, from that time to the present, they have become, instead of a mere aggregate of units, an organized whole, capable of conduct ing the affairs of this great empire ? It has been because of the race of statesmen who have adorned this house, who have been reared from generation to generation under the operation of your improved Parliamentary system, and of that race, I rejoice to say, notwithstanding the 27 years that have elapsed since the Reform Bill, a very consider able number still remain to us. (Hear, hear.) Now, how were these men introduced into the House of Commons ? I am sure I may entreat the patience of the house. (Hear, hear.) I need not trouble them with wearisome citations ; but it is really worth our while to consider how this great provision for the exigencies of the country has been made. We have heard in the course of this debate some apology for small constituencies, and it never was my lot to sit for one. At the same time small constituencies undoubtedly tend to answer the great purpose of a representative system in securing its diversity and completeness. (Hear, hear.) If you have nothing but large and populous bodies to return your members of Parliament, there, as recent experience seems, I am sorry to say, in a great degree to prove, local interests and local influences will upon the whole prevail— (hear)—and you will not find it possible to introduce ade quately into this house the race of men by whom the Go vernment of the country is to be carried on. (Hear.) By means of small boroughs, generally considered—l have no doubt there are objections to them, but I believe those ob jections are gradually disappearing under the action of im proved laws and an improved state of public feeling(hear)— by means of small boroughs you introduce into this house the representatives of separate interests, who stand apart from the great and paramount interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) You introduce here the masters of civil wis dom, such as Mr. Burke above all, Sir James Mackintosh, and many others who might be named—a class of men with respect to whom nothing is less probable than that they should command to any great extent the suffrages of large and populous constituencies. (Hear, hear.) You introduce those calm, sagacious, retired observers who are averse from the rough contact necessary in canvassing large bodies of electors, but who form no small part of the best sub st rata of this house, and contribute greatly to the efficiency of your representative system. (Hear, hear.) Many, however, have spoken on behalf of small boroughs. I want to speak on be half of a certain description of small boroughs—of those where, from kindly interest, from ancient and affectionate recollections, from local and traditional respect, from the memory of services received, from the admiration of great men and great qualities, the constituencies are willing to take upon trust the recommendation of candidates for Par liament from noblemen or gentlemen who may stand in im mediate connection with them. (Cries .1" Oh.") I do not complain at all of that interruption. I admit that there is something of paradox in such an argument upon such a question, if it is to be considered as an argument upon paper only; but practice bas proved that the real paradox lies with those who will allow of no ingress into the house but one. (Hear.) If that one ingress is to be the suffrages of a large mass of voters, the consequence is a dead level of mediocrity—(cheers)—which destroys not only the or liament but the force 6f this house, and which, as I think the history of other countries will show, is ultimately fatal to the liberties of the people. (Cheers.) Allow me in expla nation of my meaning to state the case of six men in one line each,—Mr. Pelham, Lord Chatham, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, and Sir R. Peel. Mr. Pelham entered this house for the borough of Seaford in 1719, at the age of 22 ; Lord Chatham entered it in 173,5, for Old Sarum, at the age of 26 ; Mr. Fox in 1764, for Midhurst, at the age, I think, of 20 ; Mr. Pitt in 1781, for Appleby, at the age of 21; Mr. Canning in 1793, for Newport, at the age of 22 ; and Sir R. Peel in 1809, for the city of Cashel, at the age of 21. Now, here are six men, every one of whom was a leader in this house. I take them because the youngest is older than the eldest of those who now sit here, and because the mention of their names can give rise to no personal feeling. Here are six men whom you cannot math out of the history of the British House of Commons for the hundred years which precede our own day. (Hear.) Every one of them was a leader in this house, almost every one was a Prime Minister, all of them entered Parliament for one of those boroughs where influence of different kinds prevailed. Every one of them might, if he had chosen, after giving proof of his powers in this house, have sat for any of the open consti tuencies of the country, and many of them did so. Mr. Pelham, after sitting for Seaford in one Parliament, repre sented Sussex for all the rest of his life. Lord Chatham never, I think, represented an open constituency. Mr. Fox, after sitting for Midhurst, became the chosen for West minster. Mr. Pitt went from Appleby at a very early age to the University of Cambridge. Mr. Canning went from Newport to Liverpool, and Sir R. Peel from Cashel to the University of Oxford. Now, what was the case of Sir R. Peel ? The University, on account of a conscientious difference of opinion, refused the continuance of his services. They would have been lost to the British Parliament — '(Oh l)—at that moment at all events. (Hear.) But at West bury he found an immediate refuge—for so it must be called —and he continued to sit for a small borough for the re mainder of his life. Mr. Canning, in the same way, net losing but resigning the representation of Liverpool, found it more conducive to the public business that he should be come the representative of a small borough for the rest of his days. What does this show ? It shows that small boroughs were the nursery ground in which these men were educated—(hear, hear)—men who not only were destined to lead this house, to govern the country, to be the strength of England at home and its ornament abroad, but who like wise, when once they had an opportunity of proving their powers at this house, became the chosen of large coast'. present system ? (Hear.) It is not too much to say that no one of these mere boys could have become a member of Par- liament if it had not been for the means of access to the House of Commons which then existed. (Hear, hear.) You must recollect that they were nearly all chosen when they were about 21 or 22. What is the case now ? I fully grant that you have an answer as far as regards a very limited class of persons indeed. Take the heir to a duke dom or an earldom, or the son of a great territorial poten tate, and there will be ready access to Pailiament for such men ; nor, I trust, shall we ever see any measures adopted which will exclude them. (Hear, hear.) I rejoice to see that by so limited a class so much ability and so much pro mise is shown. If you look to the young men of this day —and, after all, it is to them we must look to carry on the business of the country in future years—the most distin guished persons in this house are the men who owe their seats here to territorial influence. (Hear. hear.) But what would have been Mr. Canning's chance had he been de ' pendent on that influence ? I do not know what would have been the chances of Mr. Fox or Mr. Pitt or Sir R. Peel at 21 or 22 if they had been dependent on territorial influence. You cannot expect of large and populous con stituencies that they should return boys to Parliament ; and yet if you want a succession of men trained to take part in the Government of the country, you must have a great proportion of them returned to this house while they are boys. (Hear, hear.) The conclusion to which this brings me is that the matter will be a more serious one if you are prepared to part with your whole system of small boroughs. lam not arguing this in the sense of one party or another; far less am I arguing this in the sense adverse to popular rights. For what, let me ask, have these men whose names I have just mentioned been ? Have they been the enemies of popular rights ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not, upon the contrary, under Providence, in a great degree to be attributed to a succession of those distin guished statesmen, introduced at an early age into this house, and once made known in this house se curing to themselves the general favour of their countrymen, that we enjoy our present extension of popular liberty, and, above all, the durable form which that liberty has assumed? (Cheers.) lam aware that this has now become a rather antiquated subject. (Hear, hear, from an hon. member on the Opposition side of the house.) I thank the hon. gentleman for his concur rence in the sentiment to which I have given expression— (laughter)—and let me remind him that there are many things which are old which are nevertheless good. (Cheers and laughter.) But, sir, we are called upon ix this discus sion to consider a subject which, as my noble friend the member for London has so well stated, involves, not only our own condition, but the condition of our children and of our latest posterity. In dealing with it I wish to ask myself the question how the benches of this house are to be filled ; how all the diversities of powers and aptitudes which have formed this great nation are to find their way within those sacred precincts of the constitution after we shall have lost the guiding influence and authority of that race of statesmen who were reared under our ancient system, particularly if we should proceed by rash and unwise legislation to cut off from our representative system that class of constuencies through the medium of which alone, with the exception of the case of the eldest sons and heirs of great families, the energy and vigour of the nation can easily be introduced into the House of Commons at an age at which they may become available for the public service. (Cheers.) This question in my opinion involves a reason, and no inconsiderable reason, for our proceeding in committee, if possible, with the bill uhder our notice. (Hear, hear.) It seems to me that there is really very little to be said against the adop tion of that course when we come to the consideration of what the practical advantage is which my noble friend the member for London promises to himself from the success of his resolution. (Hear, hear.) I for one confess I am entirely at a loss—and I shall not dwell upon this part of the subject, because of my total ignorance with respect to it—to understand how the position of my noble friend will be in any way improved, or how his views will be nearer accomplishment, if on the morning on which the division takes place he should learn from the triumphant cheers of his supporters the announcement that his motion has been successful. My noble friend bolds certain opinions. He thinks the county freeholders in boroughs ought not to be disfranchised ; that the suffrage in boroughs ought to be lowered, and that the bill ought not to be based upon the principle of uniformity. Well, that being so, has he not, let me ask, ascertained from what has occurred in the course of this debate that he is perfectly certain to carry into effect, if he pleases, his views upon every one of those points in committee ? (Cheers.) The opinions of my noble friend are embodied in his resolution, which if carried at all—and car ried I presume it will be—will only be carried by some small majority. But if we go into committee on the bill, his propo sition with respect to the disfranchisement of the county freeholders in boroughs will be supported by every member on that, and by a large proportion of those who sit upon this (the Ministerial) side of the house. (Hear, hear.) In like manner his proposal for lowering the suffrage in boroughs will, I imagine, receive almost unanimous support from those hon. members who sit upon the benches behind him, while no inconsiderable support will be extended to it by those hon. gentlemen who sit here; so that, in point of fact, the success of the resolution, instead of exhibiting truly and fully the views of the House of Commons in favour of the opinions put forth by my noble friend, will exhibit the degree of favour in which those opinions "are entertained to great disadvantage. (Loud cheers.) There are the very men (pointing to Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley) who have been the first champions—l may say the martyrs)—of those opinions—(hear, hear) —and if I have rightly interpreted the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge, who holds these sentiments in conjunction with my noble friend opposite, he will feel obliged to go into a different lobby from the noble lord should this resolution be pressed to a division, and thus appear to oppose him, while in reality he approves the main propositions which he has laid down. (Cheers.) But what is the reason assigned by my noble friend for adopting the course which he has pursued ? He says " I am asked why I do not, instead of proposing this reso lution, vote against the second reading of the Bill! My answer is, that if I were to do so my conduct would be liable to misinterpretation. It would be supposed, if I voted against the Bill that I was opposed to the £lO occupation franchise in counties." Well, but if the wish of my noble friend was to escape unjust criticism and cavil, he has surely not succeeded in the attainment of his object. (Cheers and laughter.) On the contrary, he has failed ; while I may be permitted to observe that the excuse which he has offered, with, I have no doubt, is perfect bona fide, for not voting against the second reading of the Bill, instead of moving his amendment, is, I fear, exactly the description of reason which will hereafter be assigned by those who may make a point of perverting the example of my noble friend to the purposes of picking a hole in a measure which may be presented by the Government, rather than subject them selves to risk of being represented throughout the country as having voted against a measure which contained some good provisions. (Hear, hear.) Well, but what, let me ask, is to be the result of the division which we are about to take on this bill ? The point is one on which we know very little; but it appears to me, I confess, that if this re solution had not been moved those who are favourable to the opinions which it enunciates would be in the position of what our neighbours at the other side of the Channel would call " masters of the situation ;" would be in the majority, and would, in short, be overwhelming in giving effect in committee to the principles of which they are the advocates. (Cheers.) Now, permit me in passing to make a single remark on a point which is not devoid of importance. I understood the right hon. baronet the First Ldrd of the Admiralty to say that the Government looked upon the principle of uniformity of suffrage as a matter which might be dealt with in committee . The omission on that head which occurred in the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies was supplied by the right hon. baronet. That being so, it seems to me that if we should not pass this resolution we should be sure to attain the objects which it seeks to effect. But have we an equally good assurance upon that score if the resolution is successful ? (Hear, hear.) If we pass the resolution it will not rest with us to take the next step. The hon. member for Bir mingham indeed says something about digging a hole in the floor of this house, burying the bill, and huddling up this question. (A laugh) My hon friend is no doubt a great authority upon such points, for he, I venture to say, knows more than any one else about digging holes and burying bills. (Cheers and laughter.) But what, let me ask, do the words "huddling up this question" really mean? My hon. friend spoke somewhat cautiously the other even ing—(" Hear, hear," and laughter)—his circumspection, indeed, was such that it was impossible to tell what he was aiming at. I listened to his speech, I confess, with great pleasure, but I did not quite understand why it was that my hon. friend was so much alarmed at the idea of this ques tion being " huddled up." We are not going to vote upon it through the medium of the ballot. (Cheers and laughter.) Such a process would, I admit, be something . like "huddling it up." (Hear, hear.) We have now arrived at the sixth night of this debate. This is. the eighth or ninth year in which you have been engaged in the discussion of this sub ject. The speeches made upon it are reported by the yard —I should, perhaps, be more accurate in saying by the mile (a laugh)—and printed off by the million. We are acting in the face of day, and in the presence of our coun trymen. There is no mystery about the matter. The idea of " huddling up the question" is therefore absurd. (Hear, hear.) There need be no alarm upon that score. The only ground for fear in connection with the subject is that agita tion with respect to it might be prolonged. (Cheers.) I cannot see, under all the circumstances of the case, that the resolution of my noble friend is calculated to have any other effcet than to retard its settlement. (Cheers.) If we should go into committee we must, I concur with the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud in thinking, deal with this measure irrespective of the feelings of those by whom it was introduced. The question we have to consider is not whether we shall then pass the bill in its pre sent shape. lam free to admit that so fsr as regards those points in the bill to which exception is taken you are fully Justified in your opposition to them. It is consideration for the public interest and apprehension of the conse quences which would be likely to follow an adverse vote on this occasion that alone would withhold me from giving effect to that opposition in the manner which you propose. Let me ask the noble lord the member for Tiverton what are the views which he entertains—after what he has heard since he addressed the house the other evening—with re spect to the result pf the decision at which the House of Commons may arrive ? I put the question to him perhaps with the more confidence because I know that by the rules of the house he is prevented from replying to me. (Laughter.) He has, however, got around him an ad mirable staff as yet exhausted, and we shall, I dare say, learn from some member of it what it is which the noble lord contemplates as a consequence of the success of his resolution. The noble lord distinctly said to us the other evening, " Give your votes for the resolution, and I will tell you what will follow—the progress of the bill under the auspices of the very men by whom it was framed." The noble viscount, in short, condemned the Government to retain their places and their bill, thus following a great historic precedent, consecrated by many ages, in accord ance with which, galley slaves are chained to their oars. Since the speech of the noble lord was delivered, however, we have been informed, on the part of the Government, that the bill will not be proceeded with if the resolution should be carried. (Hear.) I deem it my duty, therefore, to consider what we have to apprehend in the event of this resolution being successful, not in the interest of the Go veroment, but of reform itself. (Hear.) With respect to the former consideration I can only say it is of too small a nature to be put for one moment in competition with that more weighty one which ought to rule our decision on the present occasion. (Hear, hear.) I cannot hesitate to o a f gm t e he wi f t a h te th o o f se a who iasrteryofhaospinbeioenn tphuasthetdhissotewsthioant too far. (Hear, hear.) I am of opinion,. for instance, thatthe language which was used by my right hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge with reference to Lord Malmesbury, who, he seemed to say, had constituted England the mediator of Europe, was somewhat too warm in its colouring—(cheers and laughter)—and was the result rather of friendship than of the dictates of a strictly judicial mind. (Hear, hear.) I feel convinced—while lam grateful to Lord, Malmesbury for what he leas done as well as for THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 30, 1859. what he has not done—that any Government which may be formed at the present moment will be constructed with a due sense of the heavy responsibility which it must be pre pared to undertake, as well with respect to the question of reform as in connection with the subject of foreign affairs. (Hear, hear.) Lord Mahnesbury, however, is not the only man who must be presumed to feel a due anxiety for the preservation of peace. That sentiment, on the contrary, has taken possession of the country, and I trust that those who labour in giving effect to it will feel, as I have no doubt Lord Malinesbury - does, that if we hope to establish a dur able peace we must attempt to do something to mitigate those greatevils which are the real source and fountain-head of the present embarrassments, and which, so long as they continue unmitigated, will inevitably produce the recurrence of those embarrassments in an aggravated form from time to time. It is not a question of the Government, but it is a ques tion of the bill and of reform . The bill is not to go forward in the hands of the present Administration. Consider, then, that you are to lose an engine by means of which, I must confess it appears to me, effect might be given to the ideas of the house respecting Parliamentary Reform. (Hear.) What else is to happen ? is Parliament to be dissolved ? The noble viscount (Lord Palmerston) says, '"No; I will prevent that." But the doctrine of the noble viscount ap pears to me to trench upon uncertain ground—(hear, hear) —and, if the case should arise, I am not at all sure that prophecy would be fulfilled. Then, is there to be a resig nation ? The noble viscount says that is quite impossible ; but, as one of his predictions as to the Government carrying forward the bill has failed, I am not sure that he might not be frustrated in this instance too. A dissolution would be an evil, and I do not think a resignation of Ministers at this moment—and many members in this house share that opi nion—would contribute to an early or an easy settlement of this question. (Hear, hear.) There is another alterna tive which has not been alluded to in this debate, neither dissolution nor resignation, but with reference to the state of foreign affairs, or to the gravity of circumstances, we may have a distant prospect of a dissolution, dropping this bill now with a prospect of bringing in some other bill at some future time. But, come what may, although I can't forecast the future, I say the first step in determining it will not then be with the majority of this house, but will be with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues ; but as you have now the matter in your own hands, I hope you will keep it there instead of subjecting yourselves to the chances and consequences that may follow upon any resolution which the Government, considering their own interests, may think fit to take. I think, also, whatever resolution may be come to by the Government, whether to resign, to dissolve, or to drop the bill, and wait for a hostile attack, we shall have to regret a further postponement of this question. (Hear, hear.) I used the words " hostile attack" upon the Government, and we have recently had reason to expect that such an attack would be made.. objected to the compliment paid by my right hon. friend to Lord Malmesbury, but I must say, of all the compliments that have been paid to the Govern ment in the course of the debate, none can compete with that paid them by the hon. member for Beaumaris (Mr. 0. Stanley). (Laughter and cheers.) That hon. member pro duced a motion, announcing that in a certain contingency, which he expected might occur, he would move a vote of want of confidence in the Government. He gave that notice in one Parliamentary sitting, and he withdrew it the next. (Cheers.) That certainly was a very short life for a proposi tion of so formidable a character. " Ostendent terns hunt tantans fata, nec ultra Esse sinent' The writer from whom I quote says of his hero, that his " enemies fled when they saw his burnished armour gleam ing in the shade." My hon. friend (and he is the gentle man who has accomplished the feat) fled when he saw his own armour. (Cheers and laughter.) I only refer to the subject to show the state of Parliamentary confusion into which we are likely to fall. Admitting that there is no com bination—and it has been in the frankest manner denied that there is any combination among those who form the majority upon this resolution—l think that majority can be but a misfortune to us all according to our declared views, except to the hon. member for Birmingham, who has told us he does not wish this matter to be settled now. (Loud sheers.) lam not sure that lam speaking the hon. mem ber's words, but I am certainly stating the inference I drew from his speech—the metaphors of digging a hole and .‘ huddling up" give me that impression. (Hear, hear.) I confess for my own part I am most anxious for a settlement of this question. The concurrence of opinions, and the manly declarations that have been made by my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) not long ago, by my noble friend the member for Tiverton on Friday night, and by others as to this question of Reform, appear to me to hold out to us a golden opportunity which is at present within our reach, bit of which, if we let it slip now, no man can predict the return. (Hear, hear.) It is a misfortune to have this question agitated from year to year. (Cheers.) After the number of miscarriages—innocent miscarriages, no doubt, but still miscarriages—that we have had upon this subject, it is impossible but that the credit of Parliament must suffer if every alternate year a promise of a Reform Bill is given, ant in every other year of the two we find a bill introduced and broken down. It is bad for the nation that this home, which has so much business to transact on the part of this country and our vast empire, should be perpe tually engaged in constitutional and organic discussions. (Hear, hear.) Granted all our strength—and I believe no assembly in the world transacts business to the ex tent which this house does—granted all our strength and earnestness, such is the vastness of our concerns, the accu mulation of ur territories, such the diversity of the inte rests of the subjects of the Queen in different portions of the globe, that we• cannot keep abreast of that mass of business, it is continually falling into arrear. Constantly, in one portion of the empire or another, in one department of public business or another, we find there is such a failure (to discharge the full duties of legislation as is most unfor tunate and injurious, and which would be nothing less than disgraceful were it not that the failure does not arise from weakness or unwillingness on the part of this house, but because the demands of the British empire surpass and transcend the powers of any assembly. Do what you will the wave of public business will overtake you. If you have a laborious session one year, you have a more laborious one next year. We cannot afford—as a mere matter of time—to pass year after year, to fritter away the principal part of each session in debating the question of Parliamentary Re form. I say, too, over and above the loss of time, it is a dangerous habit for the country to fall into. (Hear.) It is an unhalthy sign in the state of the public mind, or rather it would be an unhealthy reign, if there was a desire in the public mind to keep open such a question. No individual can be constantly watching the state of his own health without injuring it ; and a disposition to be continually agi tating a question of organic change has not only an un wholesome effect upon us, withdrawing our attention from other important matters, but it diminishes the stability of our institutions, and tends to disqualify England few the performance of those great duties which she has to dis charge both to herself and to the world. (Cheers.) I, therefore, am not willing to be governed upon the question before us by any other consideration than the simple one of in which way shall I give my vote that will be most likely to help on this great question to a settlement. I agree with the hon. member for Birmingham that we should endeavour to settle this question in a spirit of trust towards the people, and we are getting all the proceedings of legislation more and more upon that sound and satisfactory basis. lam convinced such will be the only principles upon which this house will act whenever it conies to deal decisively and con clusively with the particulars of a measure of reform, but I entreat the hon. member not to use his influence—to what ever other purpose he may apply it—to procure a postpone ment and a prolongation of these discussions. (Cheers.) For my own part, I can most freely say that the vote which I shall give will not be with any regard to the Government nor to party, and I trust I have given no offence to any one by the remarks which I have addressed to the house. (Hear.) I accord fully to every other,member that which I humbly and respectfully claim for myself, after a perhaps too pro longed, but at the same time honest and free expression of my sentiments, and I shall vote to negative the resolution of my noble friend, because I am sure by that vote we shall best discharge the great duty that is incumbent upon us as chief among the guardians of the British constitution and the welfare of the British dominions. (Loud cheers.) Amidst the tumult caused by a very large number of members leaving the house, Mr. MONCREIFF said he agreed with almost every . opinion that had been urged by the right hon. gentleman, but he totally differed from his conclusion. The best justi fication of the noble lord's resolution was to be found in the fact that those portions of the bill against which it was directed were not mere isolated details, but formed the very foundation of it, without which the bill could not exist. There was not a single portion of the bill which the right hon. gentleman would not alter in committee. (Hear.) The bill, however, was not a mere framework, not a mere sheet of paper on which to write their views ; it had cohesion and a principle. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies said the people were apathetic, whilst the member for Birmingham said there was great feeling on the subject. In his opinion the truth lay between the two ; the people might be apathetic, but they were not quiescent. If such had been the opinion of the Government their conduct in laying the bill on the table was totally indefensible. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in a position to give advice on this subject, instead of receiving it, said a Government ought never to introduce such a bill unless they were in a position to carry out their pledge • such a question ought not to be treated with levity. It would never do for a Government to fling on the table a crude, undigested measure, and excuse themselves by say ing the people were apathetic. This question should never be dealt with in a trembling, faltering manner. This bill settled nothing, but unsettled everything. It was said that if the franchise were not uniform there would always be agitation. He had not the same dread of agitation that many gentlemen seemed to have, believing that the healthy working of the constitution depended partly upon agitation, and that where the object was not reasonable m itself it was not likely to be attained. But would agitation be avoided by means of the proposed uniformity ? On the contrary, he would promise the Government the most hearty opposition to uniformity. If uniformity were enacted this year it would have to be repealed next year. (Hear.) As regarded the consequences of the approaching division, he did not know that they (the Opposition) had anything to do with the question of a change of Government. He entirely objected to the tone which had been adopted on that subject—to the attempt which had been made to evade the question before the house, by insisting that before they came to a vote they should shadow forth the political arrangements which might arise from it. Much as the people desired Parliamentary reform, there was another thing which they equally desired; they wished to see the Government strong enough to carry such measures as they believed to be required for the wel fare of the people ; they wished to see the responsibility of business placed upon its proper constitutional basis; and whatever might be the result of that debate, he was fully persuaded that far more hazardous and more revolutionary than any extension of the franchise among the working classes was the existence of a Government which had not power to carry out what it considered best for the interest of the people, and which surrendered its own responsibility into the hands of others. (Cheers.) Mr. R. PALMER, who spoke from the Ministerial side, said if he supposed that a uniform £lO franchise would be enacted in committee he certainly should not vote for the second reading; but as they had heard from the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir S. Northcote), from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from the First Lord of the Admiralty, that such questions would be open for reconsideration, he should vote in favour of the second reading. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WESTHEAD said he felt it to be his duty to give his vote for the resolution of the noble lord the member for London. What would be the result of the vote the house might give he knew not. He for one should greatly regret the circumstance if it were followed by the retirement of the present Government. The existing Ministry had brought forward many good measures ; they had fulfilled their duties in that house with distinguished ability; and they had in their private transaction of affairs given a satisfaction which was felt throughout the country. (Hear, hear.) Major EDWARDS thought the house was under a deep obligation to the Government for having introduced the measure under discussion, and, although ha could not say he entirely approved of the principle which it involved, he nevertheless was of opinion that the good in it preponde rated over the evil. He should, under those circumstances, vote in favour of the second reading of the bill, and against the resolution of the noble lord the member for London. He regarded the proposed enfranchisement of 300,000 or 400,000 electors as a great boon to the country, while he could not help thinking that the identity of franchise in counties and boroughs, of which so much had been said, ought to be looked upon as an accidental result of the operation of the bill rather than otherwise. But there were other conside .. rations altogether ind , pendent of the particular merits of the proposal of the Government by which, in his opinion, hon. members ought to 'ae influenced with respect to the vote which they should give on the present occasion. He quite concurred with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield in thinking that one of the greatest calamities which could just now befal the country would be a change of Ministry or a dissolution of Parliament, while he was perfectly ready to maintain that the Government could not as men of honour accept the resolution, as had been sug gested, and were bound, if it should be carried, to appeal to the public voice. If they should be driven to take that course, he, for one, would have no fears for the result ; for it would be manifest to every disinterested person that a dissolution of Parliament had been brought about by the factious conduct of those who sat on the other side of the house. (" Oh, oh 1" and cheers.) The Conservative party, in short, would, he believed, be gainers by a dissolu tion, while the line of conduct which would have rendered it necessary would lead to the annihilation of the Whigs. (Cheers and laughter.) But it must not be supposed that in making these observations he looked upon the success of the resolution before the house as by any means so certain as the noble lord the member for Tiverton seemed to sup pose. The noble lord, indeed, appeared to be perfectly sure of his majority, and to take no small pleasure in the agree able anticipation. But he would remind the noble lord— " That these violent delights have violent ends, And in their triumph die ; like fire and powder, Which as they kiss consume." For his own part, he believed that the result of the division would be in favour of the party which now held the reins of power, and that they were supported by the good opinion of the great interests of the country. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the apprehended creation of faggot voters he could only say that the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax had been returned to that house by their aid in 1847, when he had been opposed by Mr. Miall and Mr. Ernest Jones, and that he had shown his gratitude for the support which he had received by bringing forward as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of Halifax a committeeman of the last-mentioned gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Mr. COLLIER said that the right hon. member for the University of Oxford had made a powerful speech in favour of the resolution of the noble lord the member for London, and had concluded it according to his usnal prac tice by declaring his intention to vote against it. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think that Gatton and Old Sarum ought to be restored, because without Gatton we could not have had Pitt ; and then the right hon. gentleman would vote for the bill of the Government because it restored neither Gatton nor Old Sarum. It appeared to him (Mr. Collier) that the principle of the noble lord's resolution had been acknowledged on both sides of the house. The people had hitherto been not apathetic, but tranquil, because they believed the promise made that a Reform Bill should be in troduced. They believed now that it had not been intro ' duced ; but, although there had been a good deal of agita tion in the country, they had been on the whole calm, because they believed that the House of Commons would reject the Government bill and give them a proper measure of reform. The bill had been called a sham and a delusion, but if he were inclined to borrow the slang of St. Giles's, with which the learned Solictor-General seemed to be so familiar—(oh, oh)—yes, it was the hon. and learned gentle man who had introduced the slang when he called the reso lution a "dodge." He (Mr. Collier) called the Government bill a dodge brought forward to support a certain party, and not to amend the representation of the people. He should support the resolution because it negatived the bill, and stated a reason for its negative action, and he had no fear of an appeal to the country when the overnment and their bill had already been tried and condemned. (Hear.) Sir J. WALSH said Lord Palmerston had expressed his sincere desire to see the question settled ; but the manifest effect of the resolution being carried would be to force the Government to abandon the bill. No Ministry with any spirit could accept such a resolution. Were the resolution out of the way, and the bill in committee, the Government would do all they could to conciliate and meet the views of the gentlemen opposite. Mr. 0. STANLEY rose along with about twelve other members on the Opposition side, which occasioned much merriment. He wished to explain why he had given notice of a vote of censure and withdrawn it immediately. Lord Stanley had clearly intimated what the intentions of the Government were ; but the succeeding speakers on the Treasury bench had endeavoured to obliterate that impres sion. This being so, he anticipated a repetition of the course pursued on the Tndia Bill ; and for the sake of pre venting this, and upholding the character of public men— (a laugh)—he had given notice of his resolution. It was a most dangerous state of things when a Government was not able to carry its own measures. (Hear, hear.) Soon after he had placed his name on the paper, Mr. Whiteside, goaded thereto by the speech of Lord Palmerston, had de clared that the fate of the Government and of the bill would depend on the vote of the house on the resolution. This being so, the vote on the resolution would be one on the question whether the house had confidence in the Mini stry. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, it would have been absurd for him to continue his notice on the paper. As representative of Chester, comprising upwards of 1,500 freemen, and having seen how well they exercised the franchise, he had no fear of extending the suffrage to working men, both in the towns and counties. The proposed system of voting papers would increase the demand for the ballot, and he hoped that the ballot would form a part of any measure of reform that might be carried. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MACAULAY said he approved the policy of the bill, and condemned that of the resolution on every ground. It had been said by Mr. Cardwell that they were now in a position to enter into a calm and scientific examina tion of the subject, but how could they do so if the resolution were carried? He thought it evident from the course of the debate that there was not much cohesion amongst hon. gentlemen opposite on any subject, and per haps less on this subject than on any other. What right, then, he should like to know, had hon. gentleman opposite to taunt the Government in the manner they had done with being in a minority in that house ? (Hear, hear.) Motives had been talked about ; and there must, no doubt, be some motive for the extraordinary demeanour of the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham towards the noble viscount. The hon. gentleman thanked the noble viscount for his " courtesy ;" but surely it must have been in the spirit of a well-known passage— " Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last; You spurned me such a day ; another time You called me dog ; and for these courtesies I'll lend you this much money." (Laughter, and cries of Oh, oh.) At all events, till ex plained, the conduct of the hon. gentleman to thenoble lord must remain a mystery. (Hear, hear.) He was apparently in equal accord with the noble lord the member for the City. Nov, the house knew from the avowals, the conduct, and the published proposals of the hon. gentleman that neither the bill shadowed forth by the noble viscount, nor even the more advanced liberal measure shadowed forth by the noble lord would be regarded by the hon. gentleman and those around him as a settlement of the question. Nay, those gentlemen had plainly declared, not only that they would not regard either proposition as a settlement, but that they would reject it as a contumely and an insult on the people of Eng land. (Loud cheers.) They had avowed that no six pound extension of the borough suffrage would be looked on by them as satisfactory without the ballot and a large re-dis tribution of seats. (Hear, hear.) It followed, therefore, that a largeparty of Liberal members were going to vote for the resolution on different grounds from those put forward by the noble lords ; but the house might of course rest satis fied that those members would take the step in question be cause they thought it would tend to the furtherance of their own views. He (Mr. Macaulay) should certainly oppose the resolution, and in doing, so he should have this advantage over hon. gentlemen opposite. He should know what he was going to vote against ; whereas those hon. gentlemen certainly did not know what they were going to vote for. (Loud cheers.) Mr. MELLOR said the Government had given them no definite, positive, absolute pledge that they would be ready to adopt the views of the house with regard to the different portions of the bill, and, therefore, he had no other course than to support the resolution. Mr. G. HARDY believed there never was an occasion or opportunity when, if the house had been so disposed, they could have approached the consideration of this great subject with a clearer sanction of the country, or with freer minds. On any measure of reform, however small it might be, there must of necessity be a difference of opinion, and he had then, for the first time, learned that a party was not in unison because they were not agreed on every word of the bill ; that did not occur even with the most ordinary measure. When this bill was laid on the table the noble lord the mem ber for London, with that skill in party tactics which always distinguishes him, gave a nickname to a portion of it, and spoke of the disfranchisement it would effect. The noble lord might have a vested right and interest in the subject, but the right attached to him when he sat there, and if he had offered to give the aid of his wisdom, counsel, and discretion to prepare the bill, he would have found no indisposition on the part of the Govern ment to listen to any suggestion coming from him. (Hear, hear.) Instead of doing that, however, he puts forward a resolution, so as to offer no principle for discus sion, and to oblige them to look to his speech for an explana tion of his intention. (Hear.) It was always said that those who came into court should do so with clean hands. When the noble lord spoke of disfranchisement, he ought to recollect that those who now brought forward this bill represent the party which in 1832 had fought for the pre servation of such boroughs as Pontefract, and had set their face against the disfranchisement of the scot and lot voters, and the same party was still ready to preserve the rights of the working classes in all their integrity. It was with the assent of the noble lord that 250,000 freeholders were disfran chised in Ireland. Again, in 1854, the noble lord proposed to deprive the voters in all counties containing three members of one-third of their vested right. He was not going to dis cuss the principle of representati on of the minority; but what would the noble lord have said if his bill had then been met by a resolution to the effect that his proposal was a trick and an unworthy artifice ? There was great difficulty in the:way of any Government bringing forward a Reform Bill, from the difficulty of getting rid of the party feeling which it aroused. In 1857 the noble lord said that the line of objec tion adopted to his bill of 1854 by the h ea. member for Bir mingham would be fatal to any bill ; but he was now him self adopting exactly the same course. The resolution set out certain principles of the bill to which objection was entertained, but it did not state the basis on which it was proposed to extend the franchise. The hon gentleman con demned the bill as retrograde, whilst the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle considered it so democratic that he would even prefer a rating suffrage to the dangerous re duction it proposed. With regard to the question of the £lO franchise in counties, he approached the subject with some degree of hesitation, as it had led to the withdrawal from the Government of the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Cambridge, with whom it had been his privilege to have been in close official intercourse for the last twelve months. It was with great regret he felt himself unable to arrive at the same conclusion as his right hon. friend, but he could not see how it was possible to preserve the dis tinction between the franchises. The reduction of the county franchise to £2O would admit a totally different class of voters from the present, and having once aban• doned the principle, any further reduction was a mere matter of detail. His right hon. friend took L 2O, as it was rl st e ; a good --ta i n th ea r the limit of the house-tax ; but if that was in counties, why not apply it also to boroughs . ? W gard to the question of uniformity, it seemed impossible t. him to establish a real uniformity ; although the nominal limit might be the same everywhere, the circumstances of places varied so touch, from trade, population, and other causes, that in practice the sa me amount of value ad mitted very different classes in different The argum en t was urged by the noble lord on apr places. h previous occasion, i n th e dis cussion of the motion of the on. member f or W es t S urrey. stion was that of electoral districts. Th e no bl e lord member for Tiverton said this bill, in fact, estab lished The thenex t q question electoral districts. If by electoral districts he meant place which persons were elected, of course it did ; the country by electoral districts he meant the parcelling out of the country into equal divisions, the bill did nothing of the kind. It most sedulously avoided any interference with local in threats or local associations. It deprived a certain number of boroughs (amongst them that which he represented) of the second member, but that was done to obtain means of supplying the wants of the unrepresented towns ' • and if the bill passed, no town with 2 0 , 000 inhabitants would be un • represented. The second part of the resolution referred to the further extension of the franchise. The noble lord would not commit himself by using the words, "lowering the franchise," but from his speech that appeared to be the meaning of his resolution. Tne effect of the proposed re duction to £5 would be very small in the metropolis; at present the £lO houses were 80 per cent. of the whole. In Marylebone the change would only add 1 per cent. to the constituency. In Westminster the proportion of houses at £lO value was 90 per cent. ' • in Finsbury, 88 • in Lambeth, 75 ; in Southwark and the Tower Hamlets it was smaller, being respectively only 59 and 52 ; but these were poor dis tricts. A good many meetings had been held in the metro polis, and a good many petitions presented from them. In • every case the meetings went for manhood suffrage, and he thought it was much to be regretted that, with the single exception of the hon. and gallant admiral the member for Southwark, not one of the members attending them had the manliness to stand up and protest against the notion that they sanctioned such doctrines. In 1832 Mr. Hunt opposed the bill because it would not admit the work ing classes to the franchise, upon which the Lord Chancel lor said these friends of the poor reminded him of a cele brated friend to the poor who asked why the ointment was not sold for 300 pence, and given to the poor, not because. he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief. That was the way in which the then Lord Chancellor treated the ridiculous objections. He told them that it was a mere pretence, and he (Mr. Hardy) said that the regard for the poor professed so much now was a mere pretence. He was sorry that anything should have interposed to have pro vented their coming to a settlement on this question. The Government had determined to settle it in a certain way. They proposed to admit to the franchise those who by their frugality and their intelligence were worthy of it. He had shown that they could not admit them all by household suf frage. One means by which they had provided for it was by the lodger franchise. But Sir J. Graham said he objected to that. They had tried it by the savings bank franchise, and Sir J, Graham said they had no more right to inquire into a man's balance at the savings bank than they had to. inquire into the balance of a member of that house at his , banker's. Savings banks, however, were Government in stitutions, and he thought they had a perfect right to in quire into the circumstances of the depositors. Mr. S. Her bert told them that there was in that house a large number of persons who were inclined to a moderate measure of re form. In private conversations with hon. members he found. a tone of moderation, but he was sorry to say that he did, not find it in public. Honourable members who had pledged themselves to their constituents to vote for an ex tension of the franchise dare not face their constituents if they voted against this resolution. Well, it extricated them from a present difficulty, but did it extricate them from a future difficulty ? He did not say that there was a com pact between Lord John Russell, Lord: Palmerston, and Mr. Bright, but he did say that the supporters of the motion brought forward by the noble fiord, supported as it was by the honourable member for Birmingham, had different objects in view. The hon. member for Bir mingham said the aristocracy of this country divided £70,000,000 a year among them, but there was not a member in that house who did not know that that statement could not be supported. The hon. member for Birmingham op. posed this bill on tangible grounds ; he wished to bide his time. He had found abundance of auditors, but few ad herents. The hon. member's speech ought to be a warning to the house, because when the hon. member was moderate it was for some deep and earnest purpose. The hon. mem ber said five years hence they might be able to get a better measure. Who knew what convulsions might take place in five years ? The hon. member looked forward to a time of distress, when he could agitate the country, and get up, an excitement in favour of such a bill as he recommended.- But to revert to the franchise. The right hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), in a sensible speech which he: made in the recess to his constituents, told them that, how ever desirous he might be to admit the working classes to the franchise, he saw no way by which he could do it. But he was going by his vote to support the resolution. The noble lord said he proposed the resolution with a view of ad mitting working men to the franchise, but he would not ad mit them to vote for boroughs in respect of freeholds. They cared much more for votes in boroughs than in counties. With regard to leasehold,which were reduced from £lO to £5, but little had been said, but he believed they would make s very large addition to the constituency. An objection was made to uniformity of franchise in boroughs and counties„ but they had no right to say that was wrong in England which they had established in Ireland, and which had long existed in Scotland. His learned friend the Solicitor- General had been much attacked for having attributed mo - tives to the noble lord the member for the city of London. Now the noble lord had been at the head of a great party, but from circumstances on which he need not dwell he had become isolated, and now with a laudable ambition he was trying to recover the position that he had formerly held, and become once more the leader of a great and united party. It was only in that spirit that his hon. and learned friend made the observations he did on that occasion, not that he- charged the noble lord that he was actuated by a love of pelf, but simply that as a mare• of ambition he was making use of those party weapons -which had been used by members on both sides of the house. The noble lord must be gratified that though he had been attacked he had been defended, that if he had had the spear on the one side, he had had the shield of disinterested patriotism held over him by the hon. and learned member for Marylebone on the other. (Cheers and laughter.) That hon. and learned member said that whatever company he might go into, if he heard the character and intellect of the noble lord im pugned he always stood forward to defend hiLu.. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Hardy) did not know into what company the hon. and learned member went--(laughter)—but it appeared that when he went into the society of his Rad.ical friends in Marylebone, they did not speak with great resvect of the noble lord. Wherever he went he had• to defend him. Like James Fitz James in the romance, the hon. and learned gentleman said— " Come one, come all, this rock will fly From its firm base as soon as I." (Laughter.) Perhaps when the noble lord had collected the scattered fragments of his party, the hon. and learned gen tleman would continue to support him with his learning and ability. (Laughter.) It had been assumed that the result of that discussion would be that the Government would be placed in a minority. Be that as it might, they had tried to settle this great question, and it would be seen that they would not accept a resolution which was as unjust to them as it was unsatisfactory to the country. The right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle said he would not disguise from the house that he had ahand in framing the resolution. He must say he recognised the subtlety of the hand in the resolution—(cheers and laughter)—and much as he re spected the candour of the disclosure, it was unnecessary. (Laughter.) He trusted that the party to which the right hon. gentleman the member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) belonged would consider carefully what they were about to do. He hoped they would consider that if this bill were rejected the house would hereafter have to consider another bill having other authors, proposed under pressure, after ex citing appeals had been made to the passions of the people. (Hear.) It might, perhaps, be said that hon. members on that side of the house would by the introduction of this bill have committed themselves to the support of a future one; but, although they had shown a disposition to sacrifice as far as possible their individual opinions, it did not follow from that that they would be prepared to support the rating-suffrage measure of the hon. member for Birmingham, or vote by ballot when proposed by the hon. member for Finsbury. The hon. and learned memlag for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor) taunted hon. gentlemen oppdWte with inconsistency in hav ing voted for the resolution proposed at the time of the in troduction of the Conspiracy Bill last year, now objecting to the resolution of the noble lord. The former resolution had nothing to do with the bill; it was a resolution of cen sure ; as such they voted for it, and he would add that he, for one, was prepared to consider the law relating to con-- spiracy whenever the subject might be properly brought forward. The carrying of this resolution would be a pre cedent which might be followed on other occasions of a similar nature ; and let that section of the house to which the right hon. member for Wilts alluded recollect that by aiding in it they would put a stop to one of the greatest enfran chisements ever offered to the country, and that the result would probably be to drive them hereafter to take shelter under the wings of those who now sat on the Treasury bench, who would then be called upon to protect them from the rocks and avalanches which were being hurled down upon them by the radicals of that house. (Ministerial cheers.) Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said if the Government were not prepared to extend the franchise in boroughs, he was prepared to vote for the resolution, even although the con sequence might be the defeat of the bill. But if the res.- lution`sheuld be carried he did not see the necessity of an absolute defeat of the meusure, and thought there would be no difficulty in voting for a new bill containing the proposition in the resolution, or going into committee to make the necessary alterations in the present bill. If the Government were determined to oppose the propositions embodied in the resolution, he should consider it his duty to vote against the bill. (Hear, hear.) There was one point on which he trusted the Government would give some infor mation before the close of the debate, and that was as to their intention with regard to the Reform Bill for Ireland. (Cheers.) He should like to ask, first, whether they were to have a Reform Bill at all ; and if so, was the occupation county franchise to be reduced? He also desired to be in formed whether there was to be any alteration in the occu pation franchise in towns ? He did not press these questions from any bitterness of feeling, but because without more de finite information on these points he did not see how hon. members could come to any definite conclusion on the course which they should pursue. Mr. DU CANE moved the adjournment of the debate. Sir D. NORREYS thought that the debate might be continued to-morrow. (Cries of No, Go on, and Adjourn.) Really, if this were not done, he did not see how the debate was to close on Thursday. Mr. LINDSAY said that there were many plain men like himself who desired to speak. He thought that the debate ought not to close on Thursday. Sir J. PAK INGTON said that it would not be conve nient to adjourn the debate to Wednesday. In the absence of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not give any understanding to bind his right hon. friend. The house would do his right hon. friend the jus tice to admit that he had shown no disposition unduly to cut short the debate. (Hear.) If on Thursday it appeared that there were still many hon. members to speak, he had no doubt his right hon. friend would endeavour, as he had done, to meet the wishes of the house. (H ear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had showed a fair desire to meet the wishes of the house. (Cheers.) When the right hon. gentleman spoke of an arran gement to conclude on Thursday, there seemed to be a general impression in favour of that arrange ment. But on Thursday there would be an opportunity of judging as to the number of hon. members still desirous to speak on this subject. It was, no doubt, an important one, and one on which hon. members might naturally desire to address the house. He thought that the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ) a few words from Mr. P. O'Brien, Mr. Cox, and Mr.(C he Griffith,e After r. s the d e b a t e was a dj ourne d to Thursday. The Patents for Inventions (Munitions of War) Bill and the Common Rights (War Department) Bill were read a third time and passed. The house adjourned at a quarter before 1 o'clock. Mr. J. Norbury, senior, of the firm of Jas. Capel and Co., has been elected chairman of the Stock Exchange, and Mr. F. L. Slous deputy-chairman. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (MUNITIONS OF WAR). —A. bill, under the care of the present Attorney and Soh citor-Generals and General Peel, the present Secretary of War, allows any inventor of any improvement in instru ments or munitions of war to assign the benefit of such in vention to the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary may certify to the Commissioners of Patents that the in vention be kept secret. 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 county o Middlesex, Wednesday, Marsh 30, 1849. oi, me ma fee Th pla an( p.m, Box Gall die( been prin Lem SHI 245. DOZI Imp blisl Dozi per R. Stro Doz, lc p paid Ca Gra, Ilea , HEI 15s. Pate Basi Illus Rem Awn eons or tx and Judi' Fun DIS ally effec enti: and Blac Kid of a titre any 338, savi to Is stre fron