The Sun. — London, England, 1859-01-18 00:00:00

IGHT AT BRADFORD.. Mr. T fright addressed a public meeting of the in habitar.ts of Bradford last evening in St. George's hall, on he subject of Parliamentary Reform. The I tall, capable of accommodating between 4,000 ar,d 5,000 persons, was densely crowded in every p art. The platform was occupied by leading merchants and manufacturers of Bradford, and by deputations from most of the principal towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. Henry Brown, the Mayor, presided, and when Mr. Bright entered the hall at 7 o'clock, accompanied by the influential menibers of the local Liberal Registration Society, under whose auspices the meeting was held, he was received with loud and prolonged cheering. After a few introductory remarks by the MAYOR, Mr. T. SALT moved, and Mr. JOHN CROSSLEY seconded the following resolution, which was car ried with acclamation " That this meeting, gratefully recognizing Mr. Blight's eminent services in the great struggle for the repeal of the Corn Laws, cordially welcomes him to Bradford on this his first visit since the triumphant issue of that conflict, and re membering the severe and painful illness which more re cently compelled him to withdraw awhile from public life, offers him its hearty congratulations on his happy restora tion to health, and expresses its earnest hope that his life may be long spared, and that he may be able to devote the rare abilities and enerwies for which he is so distinguished to the promotion of tase objects which are most closely identified with the political and social well-being of the great mass of the people." Mr. BRIGHT, on rising to address the meeting,. d was received with protracted cheering. He said , -'— I, I must ask you to bear with me if am un able in fitting language to acknowledge the kindne ss . with which you have just received me. I feel it to be a very heavy responsibility to stand upon this platform to-night, but at the game time I feel it to be a privilege, and in some sense a plea sure, to be permitted to join this amazing meeting in its open deliberation upon the great question which is now submitted to the Ju dgment of the co untry. I see before me a very large representa tion of your most energetic community, and this meeting comprises, I have reason to believe, not a few of what I may call the flower of the active minded politicians and Reformers of the great West Riding of Yorkshire. (Cheers.) The question which I shall to-night submit to your judgment is a great one. If I had not felt it to be such I would not have left my home and the comforts of my family for the purpose of exhibiting myself upon public platforms in various parts of the country. I have spoken in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Edin burgh, and in Glasgow, and upon each of those occasions vast multitudes came to listen, filled with a great and glowing interest in the question of re form, and anxious as I am that any step which the Government and Parliament may take may conduce to the lasting and highest interests of this great nation—(cheers)—l have been particularly stimu lated, if I may so speak, to address the meetings to which I have referred, by the belief that it is of an importance which cannot be described in words that we who wish for reform should know what it is we want, and should so understand the question that we could at any moment detect and place our finger upon any imposture that may be offered to us. (Cheers.) Whatever may be our next step, I trust that we shall have sense and intelligence enough to avoid any mistake which we or our chil dren might hereafter have cause to lament. (Hear.) I suppose we are all Reformers —everybody is for Parliamentary reform. I thought I had met with a man against reform as I came to Bradford to-day by train, but I found out, after all, that he was not against reform, only he did not much like paying to hear political speeches. (A laugh.) If then everybody is for reform, why, it may be asked, - Warn people against an imposture ? Have you observed the comments which have been made by the press upon the question of reform, and upon the course which we have taken during the last three months ? lam quite willing to allow it to be assumed that my expressions have not always been judicious, that I may have com mitted some mistakes ; but still the comments of a considerable portion of the press have been dictated not by an honest desire to point out with a friendly finger the errors into which I may have fallen, but by an intense feeling of hostility. I know not whe ther the press which represents the present Go vernment, or the press which represents the last Government, is more open to the charge of rancor ous opposition. (Hear, hear.) Have you observed, again, the silly panic into which some members of the peerage have been thrown ? These noblemen are not anxious that the question of reform should be discussed by those who are able to deal with it thoroughly, and they imagine that the people will be led away from the pursuit of a great object by attributing to me oftentimes language, but always objects, to which I have never giv e n th e sma ll es t approbation. (Cheers.) The great question which we are assembled to discuss may be conveniently divided into three—the first is, what ought to be done with regard to an extension of the franchise beyond the limit at which it is now fixed ? the se cond, shall ;any alteration be made in the mode in which the right of the franchise is exercised; and the third, what steps shall be taken to withdraw members from places and populations wholly incom petent fairly to exercise the right of election ; and to what new, or old, or great towns or industries, and populations, shall these members afterwards be distributed? The consideration of the last question will be the main object of my speech to-night, but I must 'briefly allude to the first and second before I come to it. With regard, then, to the Parliamen tary franchise, I may.say, on the part of all earnest Reformers, that they decidedly object to what may be termed fancy franchises, franchises which are given, not so much with reference to those they include; as with reference to those they exclude. (Hear, hear.) Somebody, for instance, has pro posed that our friends the lawyers should have a special representation in the House of Commons. You do not know so much of the House of Com mons as I do, but you know, at all events, that on the Ministerial bench there generally sit five lawyers—the Attorney and Solicitor-General for England, the Attorney and Solicitor-General for Ireland, and the Lord-Advocate for Scotland, and that on the opposite bench there are just as many more, who want to change places with them. (A laugh.) There are certainly not fewer than 100 other lawyers—l mean barristers—in the House of Commons, and therefore I do not think the legal profession requires anymore representation. (Hear.) Why should we not make a special body of the worsted manufacturers of Bradford, just as useful men in the coun t ry as l aw y ers ? The object of giving the lawyers a member, or two members, is that the p eo pl e s h ou ld not get th a t one or th ose two members. (Hear.) Again, some one has pro posed that the doctors should be enfranchised. I presume that all the doctors who live in £lO houses vote in Bradford, or elsewhere. If you talk to a doctor about politics he generally tells you that, as he goes into the houses of gentlemen of all parties he really does not care to mix* himself up in public matters, or that his occupation is so onerous and responsible that he cannot devote any portion of his time to subjects beyond the range of his profes sion. I maintain that doctors and lawyers, though highly educated and intelligent, and devoted to the great interest s o f soc i ety, are not specially learned on political questions, and have no more right to the franchise than any other class of their countrymen. A proposition has also been made that all persons should be enfranchised who have £5O in a saving s' bank. I should lik e t o see every man have £5O or £lOO in a savings' bank ; but, according to the proposals to which I allude, if a young man hap pened to marry, and to withdraw his £5O from the savings' bank, and invest the sum in the furniture of a comfortable house, although he would thereby become what I must consider a more responsible citizen, he would lose his special franchise. (Hear.) The fact is, I believe, that all these propositions are submitted by men who have not really consi dered the question, or who have considered it so much that they are finding out by what means they can manipulate the representation so as to avoid conferrin g it upon the actual citizenship of the kingdom. Cheers.) On the other hand, my main objection to the franchise as it now exists is, that while it is distributed with consider able free dom among all other classes of society, it is fixed at a point which necessarily excludes the most numerous class of all. (Cheers.) The occupiers of £lO houses do not generally receive wages f rom week to w eek, or from fortnight to fort night. The object of the Reform Bill of 1832 was to exclude the wages receiving class. lam not blaming that bill or its authors, nor have I ever denied that it was a great measure, considered as the first step taken in this country with a view to extend political rights among the people—(hear)—but it is a fact that it d oes so exclude the great wages-receiving class of th e ki ngdom, to be an inj ury andthat exclusion I maintain to all other honest classes and an enormous grievance to the class which it more im mediately affects. (Cheers.) I t i s not in the least necessary that everybody should vote, but it is ne cessary, for the satisfaction of common sense and justice, that the fra nc hi se should be such equality as we can arr i ve at, aber y dis and with tributed among all classes of the p eop l e who are called to obey the law. (Cheers.) H ow s h all we ace uy . on this object ? It must, I think, b e b y pi something dif ferent from franchises founded upon deposits savings -banks, as well as from votes given especi ally to colleges and professional men--we must adopt some more broad and general, and indeed all encompassing principle. I have recommended, as that all persons whose i n d us t ry many of you know, is called upon to contribute some portion to the maintenance of the most indigent and helpless sick class of the people, should be admitted to the Parlia mentary franchise. I understand that in Bradford there are many gentlemen in favour of household suffrage. I confess lam not able to discover any real difference between the two propositions, and I would not ask anybody who was in favour of house hold suffrage to go with me for a rating suffrage ; but I will go with the greatest pleasure with him for the household suffrage which he prefers—the only difference, if it can be called such, which I can discern, seems to be in f avour o f th e proposa l which I value. A household suffrage would exclude every person who did not himself occupy a dwelling house, although he might have a warehouse, an office, or a manufactory, and, measured by wealth, be a much more important memb er o f society than many of those who are householders. I presume that the advocates of household suffrage do not wish to exclude from the franchise the occupier of one of yoiuthr his w friendsarelouses,aaoldthhoiurngsholhf enot be a householder. may happen to live w as said before, to take the and the late Earl Grey .) proposed in 1 4 franchise Cheers which h a ie , m h 97 lt willing, which Lord Lord Durham proposed at o in of t l h B e 32 l a st , and 6o whichyears hasal- the time every of e a d vo cated. I believe that if such a franchise were leading Reform Bill reformer es tablished there would be felt throughout the kingdom a consciousness which nothing could dis turb, that so far as that matter at least went Par liament had done full justice to all classes of the people. (Cheers.) Any provision making it easy for persons wishing to have a vote to procure admit tance to the franchise I should be perfectly willing to see superadded, as I am satisfied that there will not be among a large portion of those who are now enfranchised a full contentment with any measure which shall deal pusillanimously with a distinction, be it a privilege or a right, which must ever be very dear to the citizens of a free country. But I am told by a considerable authority in this country that danger would arise from so large an extension of the franchise. The actual extension may be briefly . stated, and I believe that in certain boroughs, where it happens that the working classes form an unusually large proportion of the population, the number of voters would be increased threefold— where. there are 1,000 e l ec t ors t h ere would be 3,000. But . in a great many o th er b oro ughs--in fact, I be lieve in all those which are not chiefly manufactur ing, the number of voters wouldn't be more than doubled; and, taki ng th e w h o l e o f the boroughs of the kingdom together, I am inclined to think that the average wouldn't reach, or at all events exceed two and a-half times the pre sen t num b er of electors. It may be said, however, that even that is a serious increase, and " Who k nows w h at the new voters will do ?" Who, ind ee d ? (A l augh.) lam qu i te certain there are some men returned to Parliament who would have to revise the tariff of their opinions, or they would not be likely to go there again. (A laugh and cheers.) Th ere are o th ers w hom, per haps,it would be desirable to have in Parliament, who would doubtless find their positions changed lin an election ; but I conceive that, as a rule, the new constituencies would be actuated by precisely the same motives which sway the present consti tuencies. (Hear.) Do you fear that you would have violence in your streets ? You may have heard, for I have told the story before, that when it was proposed to confer two members upon Leeds and to establish a £lO franchise, a banker declared that it would be no longer safe to have a bank in that town, and that if the proposal were carried out he would be obliged to• remove his establishment—l presume to Knaresborough, or some other similar place. (A laugh.) All the talk of violence and turbulence by men who possess votes arises from an ignorance that is positively incomprehensible. I always thought that a vote was a symbol of moral as opposed to physical force. (Cheers.) I always imagined that when a member was entitled to re cord his vote in favour of a particular candidate the idea of violence vanished from his mind, and the club dropped, as it were, from his helpless hands. (Cheers.) How is the franchise exercised at the present moment ? Some persons vote for a candidate because they agree in opinion upon some pet subject, or perhaps because they are pretty much of one mind as to affairs generally ; but there are many others who vote because somebody else votes in favour of a man who in the opinion of both is a very good, respectable gentleman, who may be trusted as a member of Parliament. It is not neces sary that an elector should be profoundly versed in history or positively incomprehensible in finance— (a laugh)—but it is necessary that he should pos sess an average amount of common sense, in order that he may be able to f orm a mo d era t e l y j ust opinion of the character of the man who solicits his suffrage as well as of the party by whom he is supported. (Hear, hear.) But I am told that the new voters will swamp the present consti tuencies. I received a letter the other day from a friend in London, a most intelligent man, who said, " I understand that they are getting up a notion or fear that your franchise would swamp the shopkeepers, and the shopkeepers are turning against you ; " but what did they say in 1832 ? Why, they said that you ought to give the franchise to the shopkeepers because the shop keepers would swamp somebody else. I don't be lieve that the bakers, the grocers, and various other shopkeepers in Bradford, or in any town in England, ever conspired for the purpose of swamping the men of large capital, such as the great merchants, manufacturers, and so forth ; andif you go lower in the scale of wealth you come to men of the same flesh and blood, the same interest, the same families, the same hopes, the same fears, who read the same newspapers and learn the same facts. What would they do ? They would be acted upon precisely like those above them, some going one way, some an other, and you would find the working men of this town or of any other, just as much broken up into all the sections that arise at an election as any other class. You are, perhaps, not aware that nearly one-third of the whole of the present constituencies in the boroughs enfran chised by the Reform Act are occupiers of between £l5 and under £25 yearly rent—that is to say, between £lO and £25, far more than half of the constituencies are to be found, and yet the men under £25 have never done anything to swamp those above £25, and when the franchise comes down to £5, or to household or a rating suffrage, I believe that any such danger will prove thoroughly chimerical and absurd as it has done under the fran chise established by the last Reform Act. So much as to that point. There is the question of the fran chise for the counties, on which I should wish to say merely a senteuce. The county franchise has hitherto always been of what is termed a more Conservative or select kind than that of the boroughs. It was before the Reform Bill a franchise based on the ,ownership of land ; the Conservative and landlord party broke in upon that principle by establishing a franchise based on a £5O occupancy. It has now been proposed for many years to bring down the franchise in the counties on the same level as it now stands upon in the towns. That, I think, is the opinion of the majority of the present House of Commons. I :believe it meets with a large amount of acceptance throughout both the boroughs and counties of the kingdom; and as I have no intention whatever of advocating or proposing a measure which is far in advance of public opinion, but rather going along with and acting in harmony with that opinion, I shall be perfectly satisfied, with regard to the county fran chise now, to see the £lO franchise established in all the counties of the country. Now when all these men get their votes by law it becomes a question of interest to know whether they shall proceed to the exercise of their right as we have done in past times, and up till now, or whether they shall have whatever security, whatever shelter from influence and front menace, can be afforded by the adoption of vote by ballot. (Hear, hear.) In almost every cou n t ry i n t h e wor ld , w h ere a repre sentative system ex i s t s, t h e b allot i s the mo d e o f voting that is practised. I remember reading in the work of some historian of I believ the United States, andlalughhor willthnaotbofrdeyedom depends b:aelnadrsm::epdonatrtehpirserseenf reference representative e (a institutions, and th e f ree d om of in stitutions depends upon the ballot. (Cheers.) The rich generally, though some of them certainly are not very courageous—(a laugh) —do not l need, and ;l essential to do not ask f or , t h e b allot, but almost those who are not rich regar d i t as absolu t e] enable them h ones tl y to perform their public duty in giving their votes at the poll. (Cheers.) I wou ld rather take the opi n i on of th.osewho feel the neces sity for the ballot th an I would take thatarn satisfied of those to whom it must ever be unessential from no little experience during the I last 20 3ears sh in ed parliamentary elections, that I s h ou ld be conferring no advantage whatever upon my fellow -countrymen who are now un enfranchised if I could give themthe vote without giving them with it the protection of the ballot. (Hear.) I have not the smallest d ou b t of the passing of the ballot within a short period. Cheers.) Th ere are nowin the House of Commons more than 230, I forget how many more, members who h ave voted for the ballot; and every election without a Reform Bill will add to that number—and an elec tion with a Reform Bill , even if t were (possibl e for Parliament to grant a Reform Bill without the ballot, would add, I believe, very largely to the number of that vote ; and I am as satisfied as one can be of anything that has yet to come, and I be lieve I express only the opinion of every intelligent man in the House of Commons when I say it, that the ballot is at this moment almost within the reach of the constituencies of the United Kingdom. _ - (Cheers.) Let us now _ step on to the ques tion of the 'distribution of members—a point on which you will probably have observed that I have never expressed myself in more than general terms in the speeches that I have recently delivered, be caust it was impoggible, ae you will gee, until a lid of the borough of h hee census beceonnscaulrteefdulalys gone over, and sdonihadreturns to the population of particular towns now en franchised, or of towns which ought to be so. To state anything in detail on this matter the whole question had first to be subjected to a most sifting and minute investigation. I was asked on coming to Bradford if I could tell what the Government Bill was to be. He was rather a young politician who put that question to me. I am not in the secrets of the Cabinet ; at the same time I am willing to take this opportunity of stat ing, with perfect honesty, that no single step which I have taken with regard to the subject has been influenced in the slightest degree by any hostility to the Government of Lord Derby. (Cheers.) I know that the one party wishes its opponents to be damaged, and that almost everything that a person in my position may say may be construed in the one direction or in the other, but my experience teaches me this,—that if there is a Government question to be carried, if a great principle is to be passed into law, if you wish to have on your side the Government, the heart and conscience of the people, it is necessary that you should bid both parties stand aside from your path, and that you should go straight, not for party objects, but for the great one on which your own and the national mind is fixed. (Loud chem.) Now, th ere are several ways in which the distribution of members, if there is to be a distribution, may be treated. In the first place, it is not exactly a mode of distri bution of which I am about to speak, because the members will be left just where they are. It is possible for the Government, or for anybody else, to propose that all the Ethic boroughs which every body now admits ought not to return members to Parliament, should still retain their right to return them, with the addition of two or three country parishes the population of which, added to the population of such a little borough, should make what would appear a sufficient constituency to send a representative or representatives to the House of Commons. Now, we have had some ex perience of this in several boroughs—viz., in the borough of New Shoreham, I think in Sussex, the borough of Cricklade, and the borough of East Retford. There are several other little towns with the grass growing in every street; a small village here or there, with hardly a house, extending five or six miles in one direction and as much in another; a few farms, a few farm labourers, a wheel wright's shop, and soon—and all this put together and made into a Parliamentary borough, my Lord Somebody or Mr. Somebody, who happens to own the land, being, in point of fact, the entire consti tuency: (Laughter.) We shan't give ourselves the least trouble about the question of Reform if that be the sort of bill that we are asked to be satisfied with ; we had much better remain as we are ; there is another mode of dealing with the boroughs. You may group two or three of them together, if you can find them within any reasonable distance, and then you will make a constituency more numerous than those that now exist, while you may also gain a few members to divide among the larger towns. But this grouping together has great disadvan tages. Every man who has represented a consti tuency consisting of several boroughs must know that it has great disadvantages. The candidate must have a committee in every one of them, and if the unhappy system of employing lawyers prevail there, he must likewise have a lawyer in each of them—(a laugh)—and when you have taken all this trouble and gone to all this expense you have only bound three dead bodies together in the hope of making a single living one out of them. (Laughter and cheers.) There is another course still, and that is to take a certain line and disfranchise a consi derable number of small boroughs, apportioning the seats which you get from them among the larger constituencies ; you may distribute them one half, three-quarters, or the whole to the number of county members ; that I should take to be a spe cies of Parliamentary reform which would not be satisfactory to the great body of Reformers in the kingdom. (Cheers.) We know very well what giving members to the counties means, even as things now stand. We know such an arrangement as that would necessarily disable the Government, if it were so disposed, from giving members to those great towns, the representation of which is now so very inadequate for their population, their property, their situation, and their general in fluence in the country. Now, the Reform Bill of 1832 gave 63 seats to the boroughs, and I think 65 to the counties, and I believe generally from that time to this that there has been a feeling among all those who are in favour of reform that the Reform Bill gave too large an influence to the counties and the landed interest in the distribution of members which is made by it. I wish you and your countrymen everywhere to watch this point with the keenest eye possible--to repudiate without mercy any bill of any Govern ment, whatever its franchise, whatever its seeming concession, if it does not allot the seats obtained from the extinction of the small boroughs mainly among the great city and town population of the kingthon. (Cheers.) This question of distribution is the very soul of the question of reform. (Re newed cheering.) Unless you watch that you will be deceived, and when th e bill is past you may pos sibly turn back and lament that you are not in the position in which you now find yourselves. (Hear.) I have undertaken on this occasion to explain, which I will do as briefly as I can, the mode in which I should propose to d ea l w ith the franchise, the extent to which it should be carried, and what I would recommend should be done with the mem bers and seats obtained from the extinguished bo roughs. (Cheers.) The bill of 1832 laid its hand on 56 boroughs, and totally extinguished them ; these boroughs returned 111 or 112 members. It laid its hand on 30 other boroughs, some of which you would not have found if you had travelled thrOugh the country to look for them. (A laugh.) It laid its hand on 30 other bo roug h s, and took one member from each of them, and it gained two members by the union of three or four boroughs. Altogether it obtained 143 seats. Now, I propose to proceed on the same principle as the Bill of 1832, but to travel a little more. Yet I hope and believe not more than is required by the necessities and the wishes of the country ; by the Reform Bill of 1832 every borough with a population under 2,000 was utterly extin guished, while every borough with a population under 4,000 lost one member where it had pre viously returned two. In the bill which Lord J. Russell introduced in 1854, and which as you know did not pass, it was proposed to extinguish boroughs whose population was under 5,000, and to take one member from those with populations under 10,000. We all observed lately in a journal of great emi nence and great influence an article suggesting what should be done in this matter. That joumal has not been very civil to me of late, and it has not been very fair either. I ask nothing but fairness. (Cheers.) The Times newspaper suggested that we might very well go up to the line of 10,000 inhabi tants, and disfranchise all the boroughs below that line, thus obtaining a considerable number of seats to divide among the larger constituencies. Well, I thought the measure of Lord J. Russell was not suf ficient. I considered it was not necessary to draw the line as high as that recommended by the Times, and, on looking over the list of voters, and begin ning with the smallest place, which is the town of Arundel, having a population of 2,748,1 foundthat if you come down to the limit of 8,000 inhabitants you include the borough of Woodstock, and take in altogether 56 boroughs, the precise number com prised in Schedule A of the original Reform Act. Of the boroughs 25 return one member, and 31 re turn two members, and the whole schedule of these 56 boroughs includes 87 seats or more. Then there was another point to consider—if all boroughs are disfranchised whose population is under 8,000 where should be the limit below which you should allow no borough to return more than one member ? If I am not mistaken, the same article in the Times re commended that boroughs of less than 25,000 inha bitants should not send more than one member to Parliament. I have not exactly taken that sugges tion, and bear in mind that every proposition which I have now to explain has been decided, I believe, without reference to any of those other suggestions, for I did not happen to see them or to know of them at the time when they were published. I propose to disfranchise all boroughs under 8,000 inhabitants Then to step on to populations of 16,000, and to say that all boroughs having less than that number should 'henceforth only have one member. This will yield 34 seats to be added to the other 87, and if we add four more seats for the two corrupt boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury, which were some years ago disfranchised, we shall have a grand result, as far as England and Wales alone are concerned, of 125 seats to dispose of. I proposed to explain to you how these seats should be allotted, which, after all, is the pith of the whole question. (Hear.) There are a number of boroughs whose populatioh is between 16,000 and 25,000, some of which have one member, and, I think, about 12 or 13 have two members. Not wishing to make any more change than appears to be necessary, I propose to leave this dais of boroughs precisely as they are. I begin, then, at the limit of. 25,000 in habitants, and I give to every borough having above that amount of population, and now sending only one member, an additional seat, until I come up to populations of 54,000. I will read to you for they are very few, th e names of the boroughs comprised in that list. There are 16 boroughs containing populations between 25,000 and 54,000, and re turning one member each; they are Gateshead, Walsall,. Monmouth, Chatham, South Shields, Rochdale, Tynemouth and North Shieldi;, Ashton under-Lyne, Huddersfield, Leith, Bury, Chelten ham, Greenock, Dudley , Swansea, and P a i s l e y. Now, under my plan al l these place would return two members. When I get to a population of THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 18, 1859; 54,000 I take a slap upwards, and proceed with the list of bo roug h s that should henceforth return three members, and they are these :—Bath, Nottingham, Leicester, Bolton, Sunderland, Norwich, Preston, Brighton, Portsmouth, Oldham, Stoke upon Trent, Bradford, Greenwich, and Wolverhampton. There are 16 boroughs, all of which would under this scheme return three members to Parliament. We come next to four boroughs which ought to be included in that list, but which at present return only one member—viz., Merthyr Tydvil, in Wales ; Salford, in Lancashire ; the city of Aberdeen ; and the town of Dundee, in Scotland. You will observe --and I ought to explain this first—that in framing this scheme I have known nothing of the river Tweed and nothing of St. George's Channel. (Hear.) I wish to treat Scotland and Ireland precisely on the same principles in every respect as. I would treat England and Wales. (Cheers.) These boroughs which I have just named bring me up from 54,000 to 135,000. All these calculations are based on the census of 1851. Beginxing at 135,000, and going up to double that number, which is 270,000, I propose that nine boroughs shall hereafter return four members. They are Sheffield, Bristol, Leeds, Southwark, Birmingham, Westminster, Lambeth, and the Tower Hamlets, which I propose to divide, its population being so enormous, into two com plete boroughs—to each of which four members shall be given. Then I come to a very select, but very large and most important list—a list which comprises but five cities or boroughs, but of the very largest in the kingdom, and entitled, as I am sure you will see, to exercise a very powerful in-, fluence upon the Government of the country. They are the boroughs of Manchester, Finsbury, Mary lebone, Liverpool, and Glasgow, having a popula tion at the last census of more than 316,000, and now, doubtless, of 400,000. I p ro p ose t o g i ve t o each of these five boroughs six members of Parlia ment. (Cheers.) Well, then there comes the question of the new boroughs. I ought to say here that I do not consider this list to be absolutely complete, because there are some places from which I have not information sufficient to enable me to judge ; but if ever this bill or any similar bill— and you have only to will it and it will be so— (cheers)—if ever this bill should pass the second reading in the House of Commons, there will be Ho difficulty in adding to this list three, or four or half-a-dozen others, if a good case can be made out for them. Changes of that nature were made in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. Of these boroughs five are to have one member each —Gravesend, Leamington, Staleybridge, Burnley, and Birkenhead. Now, one of these boroughs puts in a claim for two members; that is a point to be considered. I have put it down for one member, because my information did not lead me to think that I could, at this stage, take any other course. Then there are two boroughs which Lord John Russell in 1854 proposed to unite and make one —the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington, in West London. Their population is so large and so rapidly increasing, that I think they ought to be two boroughs, and that they ought to have two members each. These few boroughs, therefore, will absorb nine members. I have mentioned several of the Scotch burghs which are to have additional mem bers, but there are four others which may be con sidered new boroughs. You are probably aware that in Scotland the plan of grouping boroughs has always, so far as I know, been practised. Several of these groups are so large that I should have been compelled to have given them two members if kept together : but I thought it was much better that four or six places joining to return one member, and having a population enough for two, should be separatedinto two distinct boroughs or groups, each having one member, as being better for all persons concerned in their representation. From the Stir lingshire group I select the boroughs of Dunferm line and Inverkeithing to return one member ; Hamilton, Lanark, and Linlithgow are to be taken from the Falkirk burghs, and given one member ; Dumbarton, Port Glasgow, Renfrew, and Ruther glen are to be taken from the Kilmarnock burghs, and to have one member ; and the towns of Ar broath and Brechin are to be taken from the Mon trose burghs, and to return one member. Now there comes one other point, and that is, what shall be done, if anything shall be done, with the distri bution of members as regards the counties of Eng land ? I propose to take a course which was adopted, or nearly like that adopted, by Lord J. Russell in his last bill, in which he would divide the West Riding of Yorkshire, and divide Lancashire into district divisions. I shall give to the West Riding of Yorkshire four additional members—l am as suming South Lancashire divided—to the North Riding of Yorkshire one, to North Lancashire one, to South Devon one, and to the rest that I shall read over one :—The West Kent, South Stafford, West Cornwall, North Essex, South Essex, West Norfolk, East Somerset, West Somerset, and that portiop. of Lincolshire which is known by the name of the Parts of Lindsay. Now, these have been selected on account of their great population, and because within them there has grown up not only a large population, but very large interests that are not exclusively connected with the land, and therefore I think they have a right to some extension to the numbers of members in any re-arrangement of any representation that may take place. There only remains one other point, and that is with regard to Ireland ; and here I feel extreme difficulty, because I am anxious to extend the same principle as to England and to Scotland; and yet I am well con vinced that there are many men in Ireland, some well qualified to give an opinion, who will not coincide with me in the course that I am proposing. The boroughs in Ireland are much less than the boroughs of England; they have nine boroughs, whose average number of electors is only 1,573 ; they have one whose number of electors, I believe is only about 84 or 85. Now what am Ito do with these little boroughs ? Some would say, " Leave them as they are." Some would say " Disfranchise them." Some would say " Make them into groups." I believe, make them into whatsoever groups you like, and, with little exception, they will still be boroughs, very small and hardly competent under an improved system to return members to parliament. I have concluded to take this course now, but of course not only I, as a member and an unofficial member of the House of Commons, but a Minister even, in proposing such a measure, would feel him self at liberty to make such changes as might appear most satisfactory to the population of Ireland itself. (Hear.) I have proposed that nine of these boroughs, beginning with Portarlington and ending with Ban - don, should be disfranchised, and six of their mem bers distributed in this way—two to the city of Dub lin, and one each to the town of Belfast and the town of Kilkenny, and the cities of Limerick and Cork. Then, looking at the vast population of many of the Irish counties, I propose to give from the boroughs of England five new members, which, added to the three saved from these disfranchised boroughs, will give one member each to six of the principal Irish counties, and two members to the county of Cork, which may be termed the York shire of Ireland. (Loud applause.) Now, lam afraid that the narration of all that list, has been necessarily somewhat tedious—(" No," and cheers) —but it was not to be avoided in the course which I had laid out for myself in addressing you this evening. Now, it is possible that somebody may think that I am: unreasonable in proposing four members for certain boroughs, and six for certain other boroughs ; but what is to be the basis of your representation ? Population ? No. Some may say property. Yes, property has something to do with it and taxes. Taxes have a great deal to do with it. I will give you, then, ono or two facts. I pro pose to give to Manchester and Liverpool six mem bers each, 12 members to the two. What do they pay annually to the Government in income-tax in schedules A and B, towards property and house taxes, the assessed taxes, and land tax ? They paid in the year 1857, £897,000, and all the boroughs that I have proposed to disfranchise under £B,OOO. The constituencies that now have 87 members, what did they pay in that year ? They paid £221,000. (Cheers and laughter.) The consti tuencies with 87 members paid £221,000 ; the con stituencies with four members now and in past time, but with 12 as I have proposed to arrange it, paid £897,000, or more than four times as much again, compared with Manchester and Liverpool, with the schedule B, as I propose to leave it, being 69 boroughs still returning 69 members, those 69 members' constituents only paid £386,000 in 1857, and, if I added to the 69 members from 69 boroughs the 55 members from other 41 boroughs —that is, taking all the boroughs under 25,000 population— the whole of it is only £857,000 of taxes, against £897,000 paid by Liverpool and Manchester. lam not afraid, then, that any one who looks into these schedules will charge me with givingundue influence to the population or to the property of your great towns and cities ; if any man tellsyou that this willdo mischief, or that it is wrong or unfair at heart, he is not for a representative system at all, or he does not in the least comprehend it. (Hear, hear.) Now when I proposed, or rather when it was proposed to me, and I undertook it hazardously—perhaps un wisely—(" No !" and loud . cheers)—to prepare a Reform Bill I did not overlook the difficulties that lay in my path. I knew then, as I know now, that in drawing up a scheme of this kind no exact line could be discovered, no precise line could be found that a man could have fixed upon and said, "'That is the exact and the right thing, and none other." In the Reform Bill of 1832 every point was liable and open to contest, and was contested; and in the Reform Bill of 1859—be it mine or be it that of the Government—every point may be contested in like manner. But the question I submit to the country is this, not whether you make some little change on one aide or the other from;the line I have laid down, which might not be equally defensible, but whether this scheme as a whole which I have elaborated, which I have thought much upon, and on which I have consulted some of the most judicious friends of reform in the country, whether in its broad fea tures, in its entirety, it recommends itself to the country, as taking great and free constituencies, and giving them an approximation to that fair share of influence to which they are entitled in the great council of the nation. (Great cheering.) Some persons will tell you, an d you w ill see it bfore the week is over in many newspapers—(laughter)— that I am treating the counties in a manner which is not fair, considering their population and the great property which is comprised within their borders. Now I will give you in a few sentences my opinion upon that matter. County seats, as you know, at present are landlord seats, with the exception of some three or four counties where other interests have grownup so largely as to overshadow the territorial power. Lord Derby says the same of them ; he told you some years ago, that if anybody would tell him what were the politics of three or four of the great landowners of any county he would undertake to tell what were the politics of the mem bers for that county—(laughter)—but ask any far mer in the United. Kingdom whether they return the members in their county ? Nobody knows bet ter than the farmers, and there is one thing that I long for almost more than any other in connection with the question, that the time should come when the honest, the intelligent, and the constantly im proving and advancing cultivators of the farms of England should be as independent in the exercise of their political rights as is the corresponding class in the cities and boroughs of England. (Cheers.) Now, you have not read the newspapers or seen the course of Parliament without discovering that the landowners as a body in the House of Commons are very much in alliance, in opinion, in course of ac tion, in sympathies, and in prejudices with the land owners in the House of Peers. You know that they are generally of the same class, that they have the same interests, and that they represent the same description of property. The peers represent the land. How many peers go up from Yorkshire to re present the land of Yorkshire ? I don't know, but I suppose that my 10 fingers would scarcely be suffi cient to count them upon. (Laughter.) Does any body tell me that they don't represent the land ? I have asked this question before, and I want some body to answer it. Whom do they represent if not the land ? Do they represent trade ? Do you know any traders, in the House of Lords ? (Laughter.) There are two or three connected with coal mines ; two or three connected, perhaps, with great iron works ; and two or three, I think, are leading part ners in great breweries ; but they don't represent trade, they don't, many of them, know much about the keeping of accounts, or buying and selling, the rise of prices, or the fluctuations of the markets. They once had generally an opinion that nothing was so good for raising prices and making trade good, especially in corn and wool, as an act of Parliament. (Laughter.) They represent land, and that is, in the eye of the constitution, the object of their being in that house. I did see one paper, I forget now which it was, that said they did not represent land or anything else specially, but all the interests in the country, and that they sat there by ancient right, which nobody had any power to call in question. Well, I don't call it in question in the least ; they do sit there by law ; they sit there by the consent of the people of this country, and I am not proposing to disturb them. (Cheers.) Well, now, I have here an extract from a remarkable act, an act I think of two Parliaments, which will tell us whether the peers represent any body or not. I have an extract here from the Act of Union; the act which united the island of Ireland to the island of Great Britain and the rest of the United Kingdom, and I will read you a clause from it. It says " That it be the fourth article of union that four fords spiritual of Ireland by rotation of session, and 28 lords temporal of Ireland elected for life by the peers of Ireland, shall be the number in trusted with votes on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and 100 commoners shall be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Commons in the Parliament of the United King dom." Scotland sends 16 peers to Parliament electe by the Scottish peers, and elected, as are members of the House of Commons, for one Parliament only. The Irish peers are elected for life. Well, but you have in the House of Lords 30 bishops and archbi shops called up by the fiat of the. Queen—of the Crown. Do the bishops and archbishops represent anybody? Ask the Independents, the Baptists, the Methodists—do they represent any of them ? No, but they represent the members of the clergy and the interest of - the Established Church, and they have just about, and no more than the same connec tion with representing the interests—l will not say of Dissenting bodies—let us get rid of that word —but the interest of the free church of the United Kingdom—(cheers)—as the peers have when their, friends pretend for them that they represent the general interests of the country and trade as much as land. Well, now, the peers have another great advantage as repteSenting the land; they don't sit with us in the. House of Commons. I was almost going to say I wish they did. (Laughter.) How ever, they would not get home every night to dinner at 7 o'clock, and the course of debate would not always run so smoothly as it does in their serene atmosphere. They sit in a house by them selves, and what is the result ? Representing one great interest, and one only, they have infinite power in the defence of the rights or privileges or mon3polies of that interest ; they have ten times more power than if they sat with us in the House of Commons, for you cannot pass the smallest law of any kind but it must go through them, and they have as absolute a vote' upon it by the constttution as the House of Commons itself. You have seen what they did lately in a glaring instance that shows at once their power. I am not sure that it shows that they were altogether judicious. The Crown proposed to make a most eminent judge a life peer; when he came to take his seat they would not admit him. They passed resolutions, appointed committees, and, in fact, got up a revolt against the Crown, and the Crown, advised by Ministers who I think were too pusillanimous for the occasion, assented, and made Lord Wensleydale not a life peer but a hereditary peer, and therefore: damaged to some extent the right which it is believed the Crown has to make life peers ; but the Lords were not content with saying to the Crown, '° You are not to put any man into t his house except on the principle of hereditary descent," but they turned to the House of Commons, and they said,—" You, gen tlemen, although it has been wished by a vast majority of the public, and by a vast majority of your own votes, for ten sessions in succession, you have wished to admit Baron Rothschild to sit in your hduse, we forbid you exercising that right." (Cheers.) Now, wherever the counties claim—and they have not yet claimed, for I have seen no great meeting of farmers or of small freeholders, and I don't believe the farmers consider it any advantage, as things have gone hitherto, to have frequent elections or many members for their counties—but whenever the counties shall claim and shall obtain a proportion of members of the House of Commons in accordance with the population which they show upon the census, then the time will come, inevitably it will come, when the towns will as k why the counties should be the sole constitutents for the members of the House of Lords, the (constituents, not by open election, but in fact. You have on this platform to-night two gentlemen who moved and seconded the resolutions which you have been so good as to pass welcoming me to this meeting. If the House of Lords is to be a representation of all the great interests of the country, and not of the land exclusively, where would you find them but sitting there as the barons, the marquises, the dukes —nay, the princes, of manufactures and com merce ? (Great cheering.) I don't wish to open this question. lam so far Conservative as to retain the institutions which I find in my time, so long as they can be made to work without obvious and serious detriment to the interest of the empire. Let us go on with the House of Lords by all means ; but let us have a real representation in the House of Com mons, and when you have a real representation in the House of Commons, depend upon it you will find that the House of Lords will wake up, rub their eyes—(a laugh)—and find out that they have been mistaken in several important particulars. They will not exactly turn their back upon themselves, but they will look upon popular interests and po pular sympathies with a different eye, and feel towards them with a different heart, and you will have for a long time—l know not how long —as much harmony between the two houses in legislat ing for the country as you have ever had in times past. (Cheers.) In considering the proposition which I have submitted we must ask ourselves these two questions :—ls the representation as it at pre sent exists, in fact, very defective ? and, if it be. is the time come for applying a remedy to its defeats? I think we are agreed.----the whole country is agreed, that the representation is defective. We hare the authority of Lord Aberdeen, one of the most ex perienced and most temperate, yet liberal statesmen we possess. We have the authority of Lord John Russell, well acquainted as he is with this ti ues tion. We have the authority o f L or d Pahnerston, whose friends say he does not regard it as so im portant as some of hi s fellow- , statesmen do. M fellow-,statesm en have even the authority of Lord Derby on one side; and, remember, we never have more than four men in England at once who are thought fit to be Prime Ministers. (Laughter.) We have all these hioth authorities concurring in the opinion that the re presentation is defective, and that the time has fully come for a great improvement in it. Well, if the time is come, shall we do the work, or shall we only nibble at it ? If we are not to do it oatizfac- torily we had better not attempt it at all. There is an evil in the constant stirring of these ques tions, that stability in Government has great ad vantages, even when its form is far ;roin being theoretically perfect ; but any Government may be shaken down—any constitution frittered away, if you are continually disturbing it ; even in the firmest edifice—the strongest tower, if subjected to constant tremor—frequent shocks, you will have one stone loosened from another, and you will finally find it some day a heap of ruins. So it may be with governments and constitutions ; but still we want to have a government which has the respect and confidence of the people. Unless we are to have a good bill let us have no bill at all. (Cheers.) A bad bill—l am but repeating what I said the first time I spoke on this question, three months ago—a bad bill is a revolutionary bill ; a little bill, though it may not be revolutionary, is of no good, and is very perilous ; if either of these is passed you will have to begin with motions in Parliament and discus sions in the country, until at last everybody gets disgusted with the growing want of sympathy be tween the ruling class and themselves, and then an opportunity may come, some period of great excite ment, when the peers and the upper and govz , ..rning class may be treated with a hand far less tender, far more rude, than that which I would now apply to them in the measure before us. (Cheers.) Well, is this a bill worth moving for ? Would this be worth the country's making a great effort to secure ? When I was asked to prepare a bill I said I would be bound by no man's programme, that I would act upon my own conviction, but take advice where ever I could obtain it. I would not try to draw a bill which shall be theoretically perfect, but a bill that shall be practicable, shall meet the necessities of the case, and shall invite the most moderate to support it, and satisfy the ardour even of the most earnest. I said I would act precisely as if I were a Minister of the Crown sitting in the Cabinet, discussing the question with my colleagues, and proposing what we should bring forward, in the hope of passing it through Parliament. Ido not want any bill with which I am connected to be merely the subject of a night's debate, and then thrown into the waste paper basket of the House of Commons. I bring it forward because I believe such a measure is necessary and ought to pass, and I trust the people of England will so support it that Parliament will not refuse to sanction it. Now, the towns of England have the question in their own hands. Will they resolve, will they petition, will they represent to their members what are their wishes upon this great question ? It has been decided by several editors of newspapers that lam not a statesman. I never pretended to be one. lam a citizen, one of yourselves. (Cheers.) I am powerless in this matter, if alone. Lord Grey, with his high rank, his surpassing abilities, his great reputation, and his influence in the country, would have been unable to pass the bill of 1832 if the people had not with one voice demanded that it should become the law of the land. Do not suppose that I shall be alone. If the people will speak out, there are eminent men whose sympathies are with us, watch ing the signs of the times, looking for the reports of such meetings as the present, which will go far to decide their course. If there is a great army, there will be captains and leaders. Do not suppose that there are not among the aristocracy families more than one or two which will not betray or belie the historic reputation which belongs to them. (Cheers.) Let the nation speak out, and its fiat will certainly bp obeyed. For myself, I have been for three months past the object of much misrepre sentation and of much slander; but I have gone through all that before, and in another cause. (Cheers.) When I last addressed the people of Bradford I was co-operating with a man of deep sagacity, of clear judgment, of extensive knowledge, and persuasive speech. Were we not exposed to the same charges and the same slanders ? Yet did we not succeed, and have we not now, as a com pensation for all we endured, the priceless pleasure that there is no hand in this country that wipes the sweat from the brow of toil whose labours are not lightened, and whose rewards are not increased by the sacrifices we were content to make ? (Cheers.) In those speeches which I have lately delivered I have ab stained from assailing any single individual. I have been met by several members of the aristo cracy in a manner I scarcely expected. One Scotch lord told a great audience that I was afflicted by a visitation of Providence, and that I was suffering from disease of the brain. (Shame.) His friends can tell whether that is a complaint with which he is ever likely to be afflicted. (Laughter.) Another nobleman says that I am a destroyer of property and a traitor to my class. I stop not to answer language like this. (Cheers.) There are some great men and there are many good men in the ranks of the English aristocracy. There are among them some who would be nobles though coronets and privilege were things unknown, but even their vir tues cannot long sustain their order against the perilous defence to which it is now exposed. I therefore warn them to call back the champions who in every display of their powers exhibit here ditary nobility allied with intellectual poverty, and members of the Peerage wanting in the manners and likeness of gentlemen. (Cheers and laughter.) I cannot consent to arrest the progress of this great debate to take part in personal conflicts. I brush aside the miserable detractors whose nature it is to ' bark and bray at the protectors of every great and good cause. (Cheers.) I address a great nation upon a great question. I am . in earnest, and I speak because I believe. I have do eloquence but that which consists in a hearty love of truth, and the facts and arguments I use enter the understand ing and reach the hearts of my countrymen. (Cheers.) lam powerless as an individual ; my countrymen are the nation and omnipotent, and to them and to you I commit the issue and fate of this great question. (The hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid great and protracted cheering.) The following resolution was then moved by Mr. E. W. FOSTER, seconded by Mr. JOHN PRIESTMAN, and carried unanimously : " That this meeting is assured that the public opinion of the country is ripe for a large and comprehensive measure of reform that will include the admission of £lO occupiers to the county franchise ; the establishment of household suffrage in boroughs, vote by ballot, and a more equitable distribution of representatives to population ; and pledges itself to use all constitutional means to procure the passing of a measure through Parliament in the ensuing session that shall embrace these points." A vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings a few minutes before 10 o'clock. POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 17. LAMBETH.—The Hon. G. C. Norton received a etter from James Brown, a fireman at her Ma esty's Theatre, stating that Jane Newell had called at that establishment on Saturday last and took away her practising dress, stating to him at the time that she had been married for three weeks, and resided at No. St. James's-square, and on learn ing it he was about to send for the mother, when he was informed that both the mother and daughter were expected at the court to express their grati tude to his worship for the kind interest he had taken in their behalf. Soon after they made their appearance, and when the business of the courtwas disposed of the daughter gave the following some what extraordinary account of her absence. She said—On the evening of Wednesday week I left my mother with a letter to deliver to a lady in Soho-square, and in passing over the Westminster bridge I met Emily Hobbs, a young woman who used to belong to the Drury-lane ballet, and whom I used to know twelve months ago. Mr. Norton—About what time was it ? Miss Newell—About half•past seven, sir. She asked me where I was going, and I told her to a lady in Soho-square, and she then asked me to go with her to a lady friend of hers, and if I did, she would afterwards go with me to Soho-square. She asked me if I had an engagement, and I told her I had not, and that I was much troubled in my mind at not having one. She said she had an engagement to go to Plymouth, but she should not go. She told me to keep up my spirits, and took me to the Red Lion public-house, in Parliament-street, and gave me a glass of sherry. Mr. Norton—Was one glass of sherry all the drink you had ? Miss Newell—Yes, sir. She wanted me to take another, but I refused to take it. We then got into a cab and drove to the house of her lady friend, No. 5, Somerset-terrace, St. George's-road, Pimlico. Mr. Norton—What was the name of her lady friend ? Miss Newell—Mrs. Ellis, sir. Mr. Norton—Stato exactly or as near as you can recollect what took place when you got to that person's house. Miss Newell—Mi ss H o bb s h a d some conversat i on with Mrs. Ellis which I did not hear, and Mrs. Ellis said she could not let me go ; that I had a long way to go, and it was so late ; told me I was to make the house my home, and that I must not be so low spirited. Mr. Norton—What was the cause of her saying so ? Miss Newell—Because I told her I felt very un happy for want of an engagement and about my mother, and she said I could do better for my mother by stopping with her than being at hom e . She said .I should f)e her companion, and that she should treat me with gi eat kindness; and I stopped there. Norton—Who were the occupants of the house ? Miss Newell—Mrs. Ellis and her little boy, Miss Stanley, a dressmaker, a footman, a n d t wo female servants. Mr. Norton—What became of Miss Hobbs after she took you to this house Missl%fewell--She went away almvst immedi ately, sa; ying slli ; should call again ; but I havenol seen her since. _ Mr. T ;"orton----Were you allowed an apartment yourself '? Miss Newell—Oh yes, sir, a very nice apartmen t indeed. mr. Nor ton—What is Mrs. Ellis--what accoun t did she giv e of herself ? Mi ss Ne N ;ell—She said her husband, who was ° gentleman, had gone to Aurtralia. Mr. Norte )n—Was she in the habit of receiving the visit§ of gentlemen ? Miss N e w ( 11—Yes, sir; three gentlemen calle d there at diffe - ent times while I was th ere . Mr. Norton- —Had you been introduced to the gentlemen ? Miss Newell- -No, sir ; they saw - Mrs. Ellis in the drawing - roof n, but I was not introduced t ° them. Mr. Norton—WA Mrs. Ellis say- anthing to I° ll about receiving the visits of gentlemen ? Miss Newell—Ye s, sir, she told me I was to Fe e gentlemen, and that by doing so I could do better for mother than being - at home. Mr,. Norton—When was it she s aid this ? Misci Newell—On Friday last. Mr. _Norton—You were then in her house tel l days Are you sure she had not sa id so b e f or e ? Mss;Newell—Yes, sir, quit e sure .. i Mr. N c 'rton—What was your reply to her ? Miss Ne well—l told her I should not consoll see gentlem, en OR any account, mei. she then go, she should nt.lt ask me, and that I should be 1 0 ` companion. Mr. Norton--How was it that yoli remained 0 0 , e hour in her ho use after making so base a prope tion to you ? 1 find that you did not leav e her 101 ' til Sunday (yeat`erday) evening-. Miss Newell-1 could not get out with the lee of Mrs. Ellis ; she /said I must not go out withou t her. Mr. Norton—How used you to spend your tigl e while there ? Miss Newell—At crochet work principally. Mr. Norton—Had you been out at all wnliv there ? Miss Newell—Only once, and th en I accompanie d Mrs. Ellis to Brompton to purchase a bonnet. Mr. Norton—Can you explain to me in any %vtk' how it was you had not communicated with yow _ s mother all the time you were at this house ? Miss Newell—On the Thursday—the day aftl i I left home—l wrote a letter to mother and gave_, to the servant to put into the post, but mothr,l never got it. On Saturday last I asked Mrs. Oil leave to go to her Maje sty's Theatre, thinking / might hear of mother there, and on my going, A asked for my practising dresses. The foreman to: me there was a long account in the papers a bow me, and mother making'an application to the mag; trate, and he gave me a newspaper containing PA account. I was very much frightened, and shovire" Mrs. Ellis the paper when I returned home. Mr. Norton—What did you state to the firenia ll at the Opera-house. Miss Newell—Well, sir; I thought he would b e asking me a great many question s , an d so I told him I had been marri e d thr ee w ee k s ago , an d liv ed at No. —, in St. James's-square. Mr. Norton—How was it that you did not retie° to your mother on the Saturday evening after lead' mg the Opera ? Miss Newell—Because Miss Stanley, the dressi maker, was sent with m e, and Mrs. Ellis told nie was to return : so she did on Sunday evening, an said mother might come. Mr. Norton—l mu s t repeat that I wonder 101 could remain one h our un der the roof of a per 1 4 who made the b ase p ro p os al to you that Mrs. Sw did. Are you pr e p are d so lemnly to declare befcli , me, and in the presence of your Gad, that nothil of an improper cha rac t er t oo k p i ao e between 1 0 0 and any gentleman v i s iti ng th e h o use while 1 0 were there? Miss Newell—l do m os t solemnly declare it, 0 ' Nothing has taken place. io Mr. Norton—Well, I sincerely hope that such the fact. The stage manager 'at the Adelphi here said D 9, was authorised by Mr. Webster to give the y olo° woman an engagement. Mr. Norton observed that there were other 1111 4 1 ; nagers who offered engage me nt s al so , b u t as it it; his intention to go on with an investigation of th/ case, he thought the best co u rse would be to po i 4 pone the engagements for the present, and shoe d she come scathle ss ou t o f th e inqu iry, as he hop e d she would, she would be left to accept the best offe r ; He (Mr. Norton) also begged to say -that varinu s sums of money had been forwarded for the belief ( ' of the moth er , an d th ose sums h e s h ou ld withlio until the matter was thoroughly sifted. The following sums were yesterday receive: viz. S. D., 10s. • P., ss. ; a Lady, Ramse s ' ? 10s. ; In n i ger , 10s. ; ' B. C. E., 10s. ; and L. -7. 8 4 £lO, to b e expended in the discovery of Iva Newell. Th e d onations of the Swansboroug Strand. Theatre m sh r o . u .w ld . a ; borough, 21s. ; Re s a w r t a h n u sb s o :— rou M e, i h ss , i S o vir s. oll o 4 ; and Mr. Arthur Swansborough, 10s. 6d.. COUNTRY MARZBTS. COLCHESTER—JAN. 15. 0 11 To-day the show of wheat w as to l erably fair, 000 sales were made at a very slight reduction on last we'll prices. Fine barley in fair request. A moderate show l"„ oats, and as dear. Bean s an d peas were both the turn '- favour of the seller. Wheat, white ....46s to 50s I Beans, Mazagan 32s to S d : red ....36 s t o 44s 1 Middle & small 33s to 4 4 Barley ......... .30s to 42s I White peas 4os to t„ Oats ............ 23s to 288 I Grey.. 40s to1:0 NO TTINGHAM—JAN. 15. We have to report a limited supply of wheat at marke t " and prices at i s reduction on last week, with a tolerallo business doing i n t h e trade. White, 44s to 495. • red, 3 1 . to 42s pe r qr. Barley ruled about the same as last wee Beans and peas unaltered. o.no White wheat, new, 44s to 52s Barley, grinding, .28s to „,—, Red do. .......... 427. to 45s Oats, old, .. .i.tm.e.ta. ....... 443 to 48s I New do 30s to ~a . , 26s to 7 P„ R°Barle y, l e d d l v do h 42s to 4 5 ' 44..... : :3 37 i s s to 425 35 s I Peas. s. —s to --4 LEICESTER—JAN. 15. There have been limited supplies of wheat, prices rasi ll o ; taming th e i r value. White wheat is quoted this evening 4 44s to 495, w i t h a fair demand. Barley, 44s per qr. go malting qualities. Other articles unchanged. Wheat ........ ....40s to 44s Oats.... White ........... .44s to 48s Beans Barley ........... .32 s t o 34 s I Peas I 40s to t t t o o o 40":_rsl: . 15. Wheat in Iimited ROCHESTER—JAN supply, the best dry samples being i„ ° request at an a d vance o f i s t o 2 s per qr. Foreign Lace`; With more in qu i r y, a t a s i m il ar i mprovement in pri ce' The barley trade animated, fine qualities getting scarce' Other grain in fair request. Wheat .. . . 38s to 42s Oats.. 22s to 2 5° , White do 46 s t o — s B eans, new 3,58 to 39 ,' Barley 30 s to 34s Ditto, old .358 to 37' KIRKALY—JAN. 15. 1 0 At this morning's market the trade in wheat was a rather weak character, with a numerous attendance. Wheat (0). Barley (0). Oats (0). First.... —s Od —s Od —s Od Second.. —s Od —s Od —8 Od Third .. —s Od —8 Od —3 Od Wheat (N). Barley (N). Oats (N). First.... 34s Od 25 s Od 19s Od Second.. 43s Od 30s Od 23s Od Third .. 46s Od 34a (ki 25s 6d .____________..-- _DVERTlSEMENT.—Holloway's.ointment and Pills! Diphtheria. —Typhoid Sore Throat .—This disease is idol' tical with one form of scarlet fever ,and for its cure d e ' mands the same treatment. For a quarter of a centurP Holloway's remedies have successfully combated scarlatiol rescuing many from the grave who had been considers',', hopeless by th e f acu l ty. From the ready application of at; ointment externally to the skin, the distress and fey% caused by givi ng me di cine to a young child is spared, LT, the curati ve p ower prevails as much as if taken internstu into the stomach. Belladonna or iron, recomm en ded ! 6 A preventiv es b y a divided faculty, are impotent compar(7, with Holloway's preparations, which exercise a sana tori effect over the blood, anti...invincible by any known discos!: BIRTHS. ARMYTAGE.—On the 17th inst., the wife of Lieut.-Colone l Armytage, Coldstream Guards, of a daughter. BRAYEROOKE.—On the 16th inst., at Audley End, th e Lady Braybrooke, of a son, stillborn. ILsacncocK.—On the 13th inst., at 20, Upper Merrion' street, the Hon. Mrs. Handcock, of a son, stillborn. NORFOLK.—On the 15th inst., at Norfolk H ous e, the Duchess of Norfolk, of a daughter. PIGOTT.—On the 13th inst., at Beddington-park, Lacil Pigott, of a son. - - MARRIAGES. GRAY—IIowLAND.—On the 15th inst., at Iver, Bucks, C' H. Gray, Esq., of Eccleston-square, Pimlico, to s o phil. youngest daughter of th e l a t e Wm. Rowland, Esq., ° St. John's, Westminster. PENNEY—STARTIN.—On the 15th inst., at Brighton, Get Hamilton Penney, E sq ., o f G ran ville-park Blackheat'' to Sarah. Eliza b eth, d aug h ter of William Startin, Esq'' of Turnham-green. DEATHS. BAKER.—On the 14th inst., at his residence, 13, Woohoer Cottages, the Grove, Hammersmith, Mr. William Baker' aged 66. BAILEY.—On the 14th inst., at the residence of his PI Leather Mark e t T avern, Bermondsey, Henry Bailey, aged 67. CRINN.—On the 13th inst., at Tideswell, Derbyshire, the ßev. Henry B arrow Chinn, rector of Carsington, Dori*" shire. GA LLUP.—On the 10th inst., at Milford, near Godalming' Mr. E. J. Gallup, aged 69. PrrenntN.—On the 12th inst., at his residence in Dublitt Sir James Pitcairn, M.D., Inspector-Gen. of Hospitals/ aged 83. WORTLEY.—On the 16th inst., at 25, South-street, Groff' venor-square, Alan, the infant son of the Hon. Raw' and Mrs. Stuart Wortley, aged three months. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOU N G' n of No. 112, Strand, Printer, a t Th e S un O ff i ce, N o , 11: 0 Strand, in the Precinct of th e S avoy, i n th e coun ty of - NiddleNeh Wl4 oB dah JAUULUY 18, 18e9, T 1 LA the Th Genc rnent sever evark , L 1 Inter ( SloL I")Tt SOpl Ruth, Al II( p r ide fOr tr 0A I,ecdo 1 %/1 te rest ( Pet eourB e of 11 and 142, St : PrIIE 4, ALp.I declar e d th e 0 , between aanuar NAT: or Mur. SAM CHA ohn horna iticharl :John F Charles Charlet J. T. Con BANKER! OLITITO CONSULT On the /Hatted wa The arnot Amount r ri zu f e ,r cl Iniun as ; Annual a 1 85 7, t 0 lng IA Add inter Th e Tot. At th e l; u th A L -u e of eta in Th th e e efr e c aPit t , whol bl atte lab t ° r the t1l i a :: It zit d ate Th e v , • With oth 7,us fro m - be tiZ n i / 66,1 4) n re it , e xport ep C O 4 11 ,44,1d3iyard! Rern c;,: