The Sun. — London, England, 1858-10-28 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT AT BIRMINGHAM. Mr. Bright paid his first visit to his constituents of Birmingham yesterday. The townspeople of Bir mingham were summoned by the Mayor to meet him in the Town-hall at 7 o'clock last night, and long before that tinie the large hall—galleries, floor and all—was crowded ; not an inch of ground was unoccupied. In addition to the Birmingham people a great number of the hon. gentleman's friends from Manchester and neighbourhood was present. The Mayor took the chair, and in a few words in troduced Mr. Bright. Mr. BRIGHT' in rising to address the meeting, Was received with loud and prolonged cheering. lie said—Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, if I exhibit embarrassment in rising to address YOU I must ask your forbearance, for, in truth, as I cast my eye over this vast assembly I feel myself almost be wildered, and I am oppressed with a consciousness of my incapacity properly to fulfil the duty which devolves upon me to-night. It is now nearly three years since I was permitted, and, indeed, since I was able, to stand upon any public platform to ad dress any public meeting of My countrymen, and during that period I have passed through a new and a great experience. From apparent health I have been brought down to a condition of weakness exceeding the weakness of a little child, in which I could neither read nor write, nor converse for more than a few minutes without distress and without peril ; and from that condition, by degrees so fine as to be imperceptible even to myself, I have been re stored to the comparative health in which you now behold me. (Cheers.) In remembrance of all this is it wrong in me to acknowledge here, in the pre sence of you all, with reverent and thankful heart, the sinial favour which has been extended to me 'by the great Supreme ? (Cheers.) Is it wrong that I should take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude I feel to all classes of my countrymen for the numberless kindnesses which I have received from them during this period—from those high in rank, and abounding in wealth and influence, to the dweller in one ofour Lancashire moors, who sent me a kind message to say that he believed where he lived was the healthiest spot in England, and that if I Would come and take up my abode with him for a time, though his means were limited and his dwell ing humble, he would contrive to let me have a - room to myself ? (Cheers.) I say, looking back to all this, that if I have ever done anything for my 'countrymen or for their interests in any shape I am amply compensated by the abundant kindness they have shown to me during the last three years —(hear)—and if there be any colour of shade to this picture, if there be those in the promotion of whose interests the prime years of my life have been spent, who, when I was stricken down and was en during a tedious exile, subjected me to a passionate and ungenerous treatment—(cheers)—l have the consolation of knowing that their act was not ap proved by the country—(renewed cheering)—and that when my cause came up, by appeal to a supe rior, because an impartial tribunal, their verdict was condemned and set aside by the unanimous judg ment of the electors and population of this great central city. (Continued cheering.) I shall not attempt by the employment dimly laboured phrases to express to you what I felt at the time when you conferred upon me the signal honour of returning me as one of your representatives to the House of Commons. I am not sufficiently master of the Eng lish language to discover words that shall_ express what I thsn flt and what feel now to you for What you did then and for the reception which you have given me to-night. (Cheers.) I neverima gined for a moment that yon were prepared to en dorse all my opinions or to sanction every political act with which I was connected ; I accepted your resolution in choosing me as meaning this—that you had watched my political career—that you be lieved it had been an honest one—(cheers)—that you were satisfied I had not swerved knowingly to the right hand or to the left—(cheers)—that the attractions of power had not turned me aside— (cheers)—that I had not changed my course from any view of courting a fleeting popularity— (cheers)—and, further, that you were of this opi nion—an opinion which I religiously hold—that the man whose political career is on a line with his conscientious convictions can never be un faithful to his constituents or to his country. (Pro longed cheering.) At the time of my election you will remember that some newspapers which com mented upon it took the liberty of saying that I had had a good deal of time for reflection, that I had been taught a wholesome lesson, and that I had changed or modified my views with respect to re cent public policy. I have had no proper oppor tunity before to-night to refer to that statement, and I beg leave to tell those gentlemen that they were and are, if they still hold the same opinions, entirely mistaken—(cheers)--that whether I was wrong or right I acted according to what I believed to be right, and that all the facts and all the in formation which I have since received have only served to confirm me in the opinions which I had previously expressed. (Cheers.) I wish now too— and all this is rather preliminary—to refer to one ingenious misrepresentation which it was of no use attempting to meet when passion was at its height, and when public clamour prevented any calm argu ment upon the question then before the country. (Hear.) All who read the newspapers at the time will recollect that it was said of me, and of others who thought and acted with me—but more of me than of any other person—that my opinion upon such a question as any particular war in which the country might be engaged was, after all, of no kind of value, because, whatever was the war, whatever Were the eircumstances,lshouldhave taken exactly the same course, and therefore that argument upon a particular war was of no avail and was totally unnecessary. Now, I beg leave to say that that was a misrepresentation which no person had a right to make. (Cheers.) I shall not trouble you more than a moment or two on tcis point, but permit me to say:that the first time I spoke in the House of Com- Mons on the subject of the Russian war was on the 31st of March, 1854, when a message from the Crown came down announcing that the calamity of war was about to befall the country. In the very opening of my speech were these short sentences, which, if you will allow me, I will read to you. I said : " lam not going , - to enter into a discussion as to the opinion of those who contend for peace at any price and those who support peace on religious grounds alone; but I ate merely going to inquire on the present occasion as to the absolute necessity of the war ; to create which necessity we must show that the objects to be attained by the war are proper, and in some degree worthy the cost and sacrifices we made to attain them." And I went on to say that I hoped if a noble lord, who was then a member of the Government, rose to make any reply to my observations he would not run away from the subject before the House, but would meet me as having discussed the question in that way, and that way only. (Hear.) Well, now tell you, what it ought not to be necessary to say, that from that time until the time when I last spoke on the subject of the Russian war I confined myself entirely to those points ; my facts, my ar guments, and my case were drawn from the de spatches and blue-books which the Government for their justification laid before Parliament ; and therefore I repeat it was not open to any one who opposed me to oppose me on the ground that my opinion on the Russian war was worth nothing ; because whatever might have been the cause of war I should have held exactly the same language. (Cheers.) Now, after all is over except the tax gatherer, and the sorrows of those who have lost their friends in war, I will .just in one sentence Say that I am still unable to discover what compensa tion England has for the hundred millions of money she expended, or what compensation Europe has for the three hundred millions squandered by all the parties engaged in that frightful contest. (Hear.) It is not easy to say how much, but of this we may be sure, that the squandering of £300,000,000 by the nations of Europe in that struggle has had agr.eat influence on the enhanced price of money during the last few years, and greatly aggravated the Pressnre of the panic through which we passed 12 months aga. The 40,000 lives which we lost in the Russi an war some persons hold cheap; I do not. (Hear, hear. ) I think that the grown men of Birmin ghain from 18 years of age to 50—and there are, probably, not more than 40,000 of them—ar3 something worth lookinc, by the statesman and and the Christian—( Chr istian - -(cheers)— an d I say that the 40,000 lives which were lost to Europe be considered before we rushed blindly ro into a war deserved to with Russia. (Hear, hear.) For myself, t there fore, all I wish to point out to that the man who hesitates before he squanders so so blood and so much treasure has at lea s t a rightmucth You is be received with a m o derate amount of tolerance &Id forbearar ce. (Hear, hear.) I intend to take an early opportunity of going into th e general question of foreign policy a little more at length than would be proper this evening. I now see be fore me, lam afraid to say how many persons, who arc by the present constitution of this coun try shut out from any participation in political power. (Cheers.) I shall take this opportunity of discussing, and as far as I am able with brevity and distinctness, what I think we ought to aim at this moment, when the great question of Parliamentary reform is before the_country. I think we may fairly say that that question cccupies now some thing like- a triumphant position—and at the same time a position of great peril, triumphant, inasmuch as it has now no open enemies, perilous, inasmuch as, for the moment, it is taken up by those who, up to this hour, have been, for the most part, the un compromising opponents of reform. (Cheers.) We nai - e had four Governments pledged to Parliamen tary reform within the last few years. Lord John Russell, as pi e • Minister, introduced a Reform Bill, and afterwards, in the Government of Lord ' Aberdeen, Lord J. ThassLli intruduced another Re form Bill, and the least said of these two bills, especially the latter, the better. (Laughter.) The Government which has recently been overthrown pledged itself to the country and the House of Commons to bring in a Reform Bill, but at the time when it came to an unexpected bat a not unde served end—(loud cheers)—no bill had been pre pared, so that we know nothing of the particulars of what it was to be composed. We have now a Govern ment under the chieftainship of Lord Derby, who, during his short term of office in 1852, stated, if I remember right, that one of the chief objects of his Government would be to stem the tide of demo cracy. (Laughter.) Now, it maybe that Lord Derby has entirely changed his mind, that he is as much converted to Parliamentary reform as Sir R. Peel in 1846 was converted to Corn-law repeal. If he is, then our question may be in good hands, but if he is not—and he has never yet acknowledged his eon version—then I think it is but reasonable of us to view his course with some suspicion, and to look on the position of the question in his hands with some alarm. (Hear, hear.) They all pretend now to be very fond of the question of Reform, but still they don't tell us much about it. They remind me, in the few speeches which they have made upon the question, of the condition of that deplorable Ameri can cable, of which I read the other day in th e papers that " the currents were visible, but the sig nals wholly indistinct." (Loud laughter.) But having admitted that Parliamentary reform is necessary, they thereby admit that the present House of Com mons does not satisfactorily represent the nation— and it is one step in advance to receive the admis sion from all those persons from among whom it has hitherto been supposed that Governments could alone be formed in this country. (Hear.) Now, I do not believe that the Parliament, as at present con stituted, does fairly represent the nation, and I , think it is capable of most distinct proof that it does not. Before I proceed to figures I will mention one or two general proofs of that assertion. (Hear.) In the year 1846, when the great question of the repeal of the corn-laws was under discussion, it re quired an earthquake to allow the people to buy their bread in the earth's markets ; it required a famine in Ireland—which from 1845 to 1851 less ened the population of that country by 3,000,000 — it required the conversion of a great Minister, the break up of a great party, the "endangering of the constitution," and all those mysteriousevils which official statesmen discovered when the poor artisan of Birmingham or Manchester, or the half-starved labourer, asked this only—that Where bread could be had best and cheapest in return for his labour he might be permitted to buy it. But coming down to 1852, when Lord Derby was in office, he went to a dissolution, and the great question proposed to the . constituencies was protection. Parliament re-assem bled, and protection and Lord Derby were defeated by a majority of 19 ; but when you had only a majority of 19 in the House of Commons against the re establishment of protection, 19-20ths of the people of England were determined that they never would have anything of the sort again. (Cheers.) Take again the questions which affect the Established Church. Probably many persons in this meeting are not aware that according to the return of the Registrar-General only 1-3 d of the people of this country have any connection with the Established Church. In Scotland 1-3 d only of the population are connected :with the establish ment ; in Ireland five out of six, in Wales eight out of ten, have no connection at all with it. And yet the Established Church is paramoumt in both houses. If the House of Commons fairly represented all the people of the United Kingdom, the Estab lished Church—it is as a political institution that I speak of it, I say nothing of it as a religious insti tution—would be much more modest, and we should probably get some changes much more readily than we have ever got any before. Again, you are aware, probably, that up to 1853 if a man received landed property as an inheritance, if it were left to him by will or came to him as heir-at-law, it paid no legacy duty—l speak of freehold property. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone, by an effort which was considered superhuman, prevailed upon the House of Commons to pass a law to impose a succession tax, as it was called, or a legacy duty on real property. I will tell you how they did it. You know that if a man in Birmingham comes into possession of lease hold houses, or machinery, or shares in the North- Western ailway, or shipping, or any other property not called real property—though, by the way, when a man gets hold of it it is surprising how real he finds it—(laughter)—if he be no rela tion to the person who left it to him, he has to pay a legacy duty of ten per cent., and a different degree of percentage according to the degree of relationship in which he may stand to the tes tator. In the case of land—the best:. of all property, with regard to its durability and certainty, for a man to have left to him or to possess—the law is of a different kind. A friend of mine, a member of the House of Commons, was fortunate enough to have left to him, by-a person who was in no way related to him, a landed estate of about £7OO a-year. This was worth in the market 30 years' purchase, or £21,000. There was timber on the estate to the value of £ll,OOO, which, added to £21,000, made the whole bequest £32,000. If it had been leasehold houses, or stock in trade, or machinery, or shares, or shipping, or in the funds, my friend would have had to pay £lO per cent. on it, that!is to say, £3,200. But what did he pay ? that is the ques tion, for if we had all estates left us alike it would not so much matter. The calculation was this :—My friend is of a certain age—l don't know what, and it's not material; the tax-gatherer or the people at Somerset-house look into a table, which shows the probable length of life of a man of that particular age, and instead of paying £lO per cent. on £32,000, he is taxed upon the annual income of the estate multiplied .by the number of years which according to the tables he may be expected to live. It ended in this way, that instead of paying £3,000 to the State, to bear your burdens and to pay for your wars, he paid £7OO, or rather less than one quarter. Do you think that if the House of Commons fairly represented the lawyers, merchants, manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, and all the rest of the popu lation, such an act as that could have passed that house, or that if it had existed it could continue to exist for a single session ? I could show you ine qualities as great and scandalous in the manner in which the income tax, so grievously felt by owners of certain property in Birmingham, presses and is imposed upon the owners of the soil and those en gaged in professions and trades chiefly carried on in towns, but I will not enter into that matter. Your own experience must have shown you how unequal that tax is. You know how every Government has swept aside all proposals to make it more equal and just. And now we come to the question of figures. I think it is very easy to show that if the present House of Commons equitably or at all honestly represents the population of the country figures are of no avail in this discussion, for the figures prove conclusively that such is not the case. I will not trouble you with a heap of statistics which you cannot remember, bat V, ill nice you as a proof one or two cases. Take the greatest county in Eng land. Yorkshire shows you an existing inequality which is absolutely fatal to all fair representation. There are in Yorkshire 10 small boroughs which return to Parliament 16 members—there are other eight boroughs in Yorkshire whose members alto gether are 14. Now, the 10 boroughs returning the 16 members have not more than 80,000 of a popu lation, while the eight boroughs with the 14 mem bers have a population 'of 620,000. Now, whether you take the amount of population, the number of houses; the sum at which they are rated to the in come-tax, or the number of electors, the proportion is in the same way, the large boroughs with the smaller number of members have seven times the population, seven times the number of houses, seven times the amount of income-tax to pay, and seven times the number of electors. I must ask your at tention to one other comparison, and it relates to your own town. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, you know, represents the county of Bucks. That county has a population of 164,000, which is not much more than half the population of Birmingham, and yet Bucks with its boroughs has not less than 11 members in the house of Commons. 164,000 persons in Bucks return 11 members, while Birmingham; of not less than 250,000, and probably much more, only returns two members. I will give you another illustration which refers to your own town. In the counties of Dorsetshire, Devon shire, and Wiltshire there are 22 boroughs, which return 34 members to Parliament. Compare the population and political power of those 22 boroughs returning 34 members to Parliament, with the population and political power of Birmingham. You have nearly twice the population, but you have only two members to represent you in Parliament. (Cries of " Shame.") I could furnish you with pages of illustrations of this kind to show you that our whole system of repre sentation is unequal and dishonest, But one more proof only, an d t h en I w i ll qu i t the figures, for I think th e case w i ll be sufficiently clear . There There are in th e H ouse of Commons at present 330 . members (more th an h alf) whosew hole number of consti tuents do not amount to more than 180,000, and there are at th e same time in Parliament 24 mem bers whose constituents are upwards of 200,000 i n number, and, while c o o n t s h t u eat oe s pe o r,, f it y t - h t a e xb 33 a o t members are assessed t £15,000,000, the constit uents of are assessed to the same ta x at more than £24 m o e o lll o Ot e l r O s (A Voice in the crowd—" We'll have it altered.") There is besides this great significant fact, that wherever you go in Great Britain and Ireland five out of every six men you meet have vo vote. The Reform Bill, which lam not about to depreciate, since I know what it cost to get, and I know some- THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 28, 1858. thing of what it has d.aae—was so drawn. 03 par - posely to exclude from the list of electors the great body of the'working classes of this kingdom. But supposing that out of the 6,000,000 of grown up men in the united kingdom 1,000,000 have the suf frage, as is now the case, and supposing that that 1.000,000 returned the House of Commons by a fair distribution of members according to numbers, there.would, in all probability, be a fair represen tation .of the opinions of the 6,000,000, because the opinions of the 1,000,000 would to a considerable extent reflect and represent the opinions of their fellow -countrymen. (Cheers.) But that is not the case. The law has selected 1,000,000 to be the elec tors of members of Parliament, but, having got that 1,000,000, they have contrived, partly by acci dent it may be, but very much by arguments and intention, so that the political power of the majo rity of that 1,000,000 is frittered away and fraudu lently dispersed and destroyed by the manner in which members are distributed among the 1,000,000 electors compoSing the electoral body. Now, I wish to ask this meeting—and let us try to take a judicial and dispassionate view of the question when we talk of reform—what is it that we really want ? I hold it to be this—that we want to substitute a real honest representation of the people for that fraudu lent thing which we call a representation now. (Cheers.) But there is a very serious question to be decided before we can almost take a step. When you are about to reform the House of Commons, are your eyes to be turned to the Houk of Peers, or to the great body of the nation ? The House of Peers, as you know, does not travel very fast—even what is a parliamentary train is too fast for its nerves ; in fact, it never travels at all unless somebody shoves it. (Laughter.) If any man proposes to reform the House of Commons just so much. and. no more as will allow it to keep pace with the wishes of the House of Lords, I would ask him not to take any trouble in the matter, but just to leave it exactly where it is. If you want it to represent the nation, then it is a national question ; and, having come to that conclusion, if we have to come to it, there is no Feat mystery, I think, as to the manner in which it can be brought about. The question be tween the peers and the people is one which cannot be evaded. It is the great difficulty in the way of our friends at headquarters who are for reform, but don't know how to do it. It was the difficulty which Lord John Russell felt:. Lord John Russell —I believe you may take my word for it—has pro bably, from association, from tradition, from his own reading and study, and fronr his own just and honest sympathies, a more friendly feeling towards this question of Parliamentary reform than any other man of his order as a. statesman. (Cheers.) But having said this, I must also say—what he, too, would say if he thought it prudent to tell all he knew—that this is with him-the great difficulty. How can I reconcile a free representation of the people in the House of Commons with the inevitable disposition which rests in a hereditary House of Peers ? Nov, we must decide this question, " Choose you this day whom you will serve." If the Peers are to be your masters, as they boast that their ancestors were the conquerors of yours, serve you them. (" Never !") But if you will serve only the laws, the laws of your country, the laws in making which you have been consulted, you may go on straight to discuss this great ques tion of Parliamentary Reform. lam not going to attack the House of Lords. (Laughter.) Some people tell us that the House of Lords has in its time done great things for freedom. Well, it may be so, though I have not been so successful in find ing out how or when as some people. (Cheers.) . At least since 1690, or thereabouts, when the Peers became the dominant power in this country, I am not able to discover one single measure important to human or English freedom which-has come from the voluntary consent and goodwill of their House. And, really, how should it ? You know what a peer is. He is one of those fortunate individuals who are described as coming into the world " with silver spoons in their mouths." (Laughter.) Or, to use the more polished and elaborate phraseology of the poet,— " Fortune came smiling to his youth, and welcomed it, "And purpled greatness met his ripened years." When he is as 'boy, among his brothers and sisters he is pre-eminent ; he is the eldest son ; he will be " My Lord ;" this fine mansion, this beautiful park, these countless farms, this vast political influence, will one day centre on this innocent boy. The servants know it, and pay him greater deference on account of it. The grows up and goes to school and college ; his future position is known ; he has no:great excitement to work hard, because what ever he does it is very difficult for him to improve his fortune in any way. When he leaves college he has a secure position ready-made for him, and there seems to be no reason why lie should follow ardently any of those oreupc.tivcc which make men Feat among their fellow-men. He takes his seat in the House of Peers ; whatever be his charac ter, whatever his intellect, whatever his previous life, whatever he he in England or 10,00,0 miles away, be he tottering down the steep of age, or be he passing through the imbe cility of second childhood, yet by means of that charming contrivance—made only for Peers— vote by proxy, he gives his vote for or against, and, unfortunately, too often against, all those great measures on which you and the country have set your hearts. (Cheers.) There is another kind of Peer which I am afraid to touch upon—that crea ture of—what shall I say ?—of monstrous, nay, even of adulterous birth—the spiritual Peer. I assure you with the utmost frankness and sincerity it is not in the nature of things that men in these positions should become willing fountains from which can flow great things for the freedom of any country. We are always told that the Peers arc necessary as a check. If that is so, I must say they admirably answer their purpose. (Laughter.) But when we come to consider the question of a reform of the House of Commons, which the constitution does not recognise as the House of Commons be longing to the Peers, but to the nation, we will allow the House of Peers to go for a while into something like obscurity, and discuss it as if our sole object were to make it what the constitution supposes it to be—a complete representation of the people in Parliament. With regard to the question of the suffrage, which I state is 'one of the chief points on which I should insist, I have no doubt there are persons who on reading my speech will say " Subversive doctrine, violent language this. The change which you would propose would endanger many things which we highly value." Now, I beg to assure all those timid people that I do not wish to endanger any of the ancient landmark of our constitution. Ido not want to disturb this ques tion of the franchise beyond what has been already sanctioned by Parliament and the country. I do not want to introduce any new principle or any theoretical opinion which it may be found difficult to adopt. There are many men probably among those whom I see before me who are of opinion that every man should have a vote. (Loud cheers.) They are for what is called" universal suffrage," or" man hood suffrage."—something which represents that every man of 21 years of age who has not forfeited his right by any misconduct should have a vote. Let me say that, personally, I have not the smallest objection to the widest possible suffrage that the ingenuity of man can devise. (Cheers.) 'Ac the same time, if 1 were now a member of a Govern ment, and had, to arrange a R e f orm Bill for next session, I should not act upon that principle. I will tell you upon what principle I would act. I find in the country great diversities of opinion. There are the Peers, of whom I have already spoken. They are citizens with ourselves, and have there fore a right to be considered. There are the rich and influential classes who, as wealthy men, are a little timid of the great bulk of the people who have not much riches. There are thousands—scores of thousands—who imagine that they could not sleep safely in their beds if every man had a vote. We are surprised that. children cannot sleep in the dark—that -they fancy something dreadful will happen to them ; and there are actually rich people ' in this country who believe that if - every man had a vote it would give him a weapon wherewith to attack their property. There being all these diver sities- of opinion, it clearly is the duty of Govern ment and of Parliament, too, to frame a measure which shall fairly repreSent what may be called the Reform opinion of the whole country. What have we ay of .francinses We have hv et P he e s e parish n i sh t f he a w .extensive e fr r a a i tlo l z i l i s s , e for in ages past, there has been an a a t have. .the n r nc hises. all our parishes. We have Poor Law unions, which have worked generally satisfactorily to the coun try. We have a franchise in our Poor Law unions. Fr We have a corporation franchise, and, with the ex ception of a stupid provision that people 'shall live in towns th ree yea rs before they can exercise it, that franchise may be said to have worked gene rally satisfactorily to the country. I will ask any man herewhether he ,believes that in all the parishes, all the poor-law • unions, and all the corpora tions men have not conducted themselves with great propriety and managed the affairs of their parishes, unions, and corporations satisfactorily ? And I should like to ask them whether they would object to have the same franchise confeired upon them for the election of members to the House of Commons. (Cheers.) There is one great point gained in such a franchise—your registration would be easy and inexpensive. There is another point—that whatever its omissions, whatever its exclusions, they would not be directed against any one particular class. It would admit the working people to electoral power just as fully as it would admit the middle, or what may be called the higher and richer classes. Therefore, as regards class and class, it would remove a great defect of the Reform Bill, and would give a suffrage so wide that I be lieve no one would suppose it did not afford a fair representation of all classes. I don't want anybody,' for a moment to suppose that that particular fran chise is better than manhood suffrage. lam only speaking of what Government might do, of -what it ought to do, and of what it might do moreover in accordance with the vast majority of opinion which exists in this country on this question. With regard to the counties I shall say little. I know no good reason why the franchise should not be as extensive as in the boroughs ; but there ap pears to be a general understanding that the next step in counties shall be one short of that. But I think it of great importance that the 40s. franchise should be extended to all parts of the united king dom as fully as it is to the people of England and Wales. (Cheers.) I come now to the question which I believe all persons who have studied the matter will readily agree is one of great importance to the country—how your members shall be allotted to the various constituent bodies. I will ask you this simple question. What is the obvious rule which would recommend itself to every man when first about to arrange this allotment ? Would he not argue in this way ? The law has given certain persons the right of voting, and it presumes that every person who has that right is capable of deciding how he shall vote. Every elector, therefore, is of the same importance in the eye of the law, and why then should not every elector vote for the same portion of the whole Parliament ? I shall be told that I am not to go to the United States for an illustration of this. I will not. I will go , a little n earer h ome . T a k e the kingdom of Sardinia. I was in Turin last year, and I made enquiries as to the mode of election and the distribution of members there ; and I found that Genoa, with a population of 140,000, returned seven members to the Sardinian Parliament. Sar dinia is not a Republic, it is a limited Monarchy like our own. Let us go to the colonies of Australia. Take New South Wales. The capital—Sydney— returns eight members to the New South Wales Parliament. In Victoria the city of Melbourne returns 13 members to Parliament, and by the Bill now introduced by the Minister of that colony the number 13 is about to be increased t o 18. I believe that in Belgium and Sardinia, both countries under a limited Monarchy, the same rule applies, and we know that throughout the whole of the United States the number of members is allotted according to the population. In every 10 years this scale is re-arranged,—in fact, it works itself. Ido not for a moment argue that it is necessary that we should get an actuary to apportion the number of members exactly according to his 'calculations of the number of the population, but we have a fair right to an honest approximation, and without it there can be no fair representation of the people. ,(Cheers.) Look at Loidon, putting aside the city ; if you were to divide th e s i x b oroug h s o f which the metropolis is made up, you would still have 12 boroughs with 300,000 population each (larger than the population of Birmingham), and. con stituencies of 10,000. Divide them again and you would have 24 boroughs, each of 150,000 popu lation, with 5,000 electors ; and when the franchise is extended the number will be still greater. I say that the metropolitan boroughs and all large boroughs ought to be divided, or sub divided ; they ought to have double, or treble, or quadruple their present number of members. (Cheers.) What a miserable delusion it is that this great capital of midland industry, with its 250,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, sends only two members to. the House of Commons. (Cheers.) - But if every man I see here before me had a vote, or if every man outside had a vote, what better would he be if he sends two members to the House of Commons, and some boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants, equal to one of the small corners of your city, have a right to return the same number ? The whole thing as at present arranged is a disgraceful fraud. It ought to be put an end to, and, if it is not put an end to, your representation will remain for the future very little better than a farce. (Cheers.) If you look at the county seats you will find that the object of the present Government, and, in fact, of any Govern ment in which the aristocracy have so Feat a power, and where landowners are so predominant, must be in the distribution of seats greatly to increase the number of members for counties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very ingenious gentleman. At this very moment in all probability he has got before him rows of figures to endeavour to make it out that the proper way of reforming Parliament is to increase the number of landed gentry in the House of Commons. I recollect on one occasion that he referred to the county of Chester, and showed that there were three boroughs in that county which returned six members, while the two divisions of the county only returned four, and that the four members represented far more electors and popula tion than the six members of the towns. Nov, it will be unfortunate for the Chancellor of the Ex chequer if he ventures upon tile giuuna of urith mehc in connexion with this question. - We are for arithmetic in connexion with reform, and if he proposes to deal with it in that way we have no objection to carry out the principle fully. (Cheers and laughter.) But now let me turn your attention once more to the House of Peers. You know that the House of Peers is a body composed entirely of landowners, with the exception of a few lawyers and 'a few sucessful soldiers. (A laugh.) Have you ever been to the botanical gardens in some of our towns, where a board is put up with the words, "No dogs are allowed to enter here ?" (A laugh.) There is a similar board at the door of the House of Peers, and, though you cannot see it without an imaginary eye, it says, "No traders admitted here." (Cheers and laughter.) The House of Peers is a house for the great proprietors of the soil. The donut yof s tr o n C g he ly s terto representedl ich Mr. Disr aeli referred, the House roeffLerroredds, is ve. Thr y ere are the Marquis of Westminster, Lord Combermere, Lord Stanley of Alderlcy, and, no doubt, another peer or two, if our acquaintance with them was only a little more extensive. (A laugh.) Take Lancashire. We had the Earl of Burlington, now the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Sefton, and the Earl of Wilton. They come up from their great landed properties in Lancashire, and sit in the House of Lords. Let us come to your own county-. You have the Earl of Warwick, Lord Leigh, Lord Craven, I think, Lord Calthorpe, and o ne or t wo others, for in a county so charming as this there are sure to be many estates and mansions belonging to the aristocracy of England. The time was when both Houses of Parliament sat together. They met together now, but in different chambers under the same roof, and no law can pass, or the smallest modicum of freedom or of justice come to you, until it has gone through the very fine meshes of the net of the House of Lords. Well, then, I say that if the l an d e d propr i etors of England insist upon a great addition to their power, the House of Commons, with the inhabitants of the towns and the traders of the country, will be obliged to ask, " How is it that we have not our share of power in the House of Lords ?" (Cheers.) Only one word more on the question of the constitution. When a Reform Bill is brought into the House of Commons by any Government, be as watchful and exacting as y'ou like on the subject of the franchise, but never, I beg, take your eye for one moment from the ques tion of the distribution of the members—(cheers) — for in it lies the great subject of dispute, and unless you guard your rights you will have to fight your battle over again, and to begin it the day after the next bill has passed. (Cheers.) There is one other subject to-whiclt I - must refer, and it is one upon which I presume I shall have the cordial assent of this meeting. It is the opinion of the great body of the Reformers of the United King dom that any Reform Bill which pretends to be generally satisfactory to Reformers must concede the shelter and protection of the ballot. (Loud cheers.) I shall not discuss that question or argue in its favour. lam quite sure that in the minds of the electors of England it has, long been decided, and it has also been decided in the House of Com mons. Those who are for the ballot are for it mainly because they wish free elections. Those who are opposed to it are opposed to it chiefly because they believe it would liberate the great body of the constituencies from the control and in fluence of the rich. (Cheers.) The Times news paper and others, but particularly the Times, in discussing this question treat it as if it were a ques tion to be despised, and tell us that it is mean and unmanly to ask that mei shoPld go to the poll and give their vo t es i n secret. The very man who writes thus i n the Times writes his article in secret and publishes it in secret, and if any voter says that he ought to affix his name to it—which, mind, Ido not say at all—what is his answer ? He replies " I am performing a great public duty ; I am obliged in the discharge of that duty to com ment with great severity upon Ministers and public men, and to expose abuses, and in doing that it is necessary that I should have the shelter of anony mous writing." (Hear.) Well, I do not dispute that, but if it is wise and just for a writer in the Times to have that shelter in the performance of a public duty, I say it is especially wise and just that the humble elector in every county and every borough should have from the law, if the law can give it, an equal protection in the exercise of his franchise. (Cheers.) I believe that when the fran chise is thus extended, when the apportionment of members to the constituency approximates to a just arrangement, and when you have the protection of the ballot, you will have that kind of representa tion in the House of Commons which will give to every man who sits there a real constituency, and will fix him with a real responsibility. I believe there is no country in the world that pretends to regular government where there is less of real re sponsibility among high officials than there is in England. There is one case which I cannot resist the temptation of citing as an illustration of what I mean. During the Russian war there were two points in which the interest of Europe was cen- . tered—one was Sebastopol, the other the city of Kars. I hope we have not forgotten all the geo graphy we learnt during those calamitous times, for I believe it is the only really valuable thing we got by the war. (A laugh.) You recollect that the city of Kars was besieged by the Russians, and that it was defended by Turkish troops, as sisted and commanded, I think, by an Englishman —Col. Williams. (Cheers.) You have heard, and I am not at all prepared to dispute it—that Col. Wil liams behaved, I do not say with great bravery, for that is common to almost all Englishmen andindeed, to the majority of men everywhere,—but with great sagacity . and prudence, and showed the qualities of ;:it commander. Eventually he was obliged to capitulate, and those who capitulated were treated in the most honourable manner by the Russians who obtained possession of the town. At that time a nobleman of very high rank —no less a personage than Lord Stratford de Red cliffe—was ambassador from the Queen of England at the city of the Sultan. He had been there for nearly 20 years. During the siege of Kars Colonel Williams wrote and forwarded to Lord Stratford at Constantinople more than 60 letters and despatches with reference to his position, stating how they were worn out with sorties and the attacks of the enemy, how long their provisions and ammunition might last, and urging him to take any steps which might be . possible for the purpose of making a diversion in his favour or of sending relief. All this was most proper for Colonel Williams to write and communicate to the ambassador of the Queen at Constantinople; but do you recollect the striking fact that Lord Redeliffe did not reply to—did not acknowledge or take the smallest notice of—any one of those 60 or 70 despatches. -( Cries of " Shame' and hisses.) He treated them as waste paper. Ho ' had, been years at Constantinople, quarrelling with every European-Minister there, and bullying the Ministers of the Sultan ; but when his own coun trymen and their allies were shut up in the fortified town of Kars, besieged by a powerful and over whelming force, driven at length to starvation, and finally to capitulation, this great official treated the whole thing as utterly beneath his notice. Subse quently, Colonel Williams came to England and was made a baronet; Parliament passed an act granting him a pension of £l,OOO a-year, and the Marquis of Lansdowne, one of the Cabinet Minis ters of the day, brought him into the House of Commons for his pocket borough of Caine,in Wilt shire. Colonel Williams has never opened his mouth in public in England on the subject of his treat ment by- Lord Stratford de Redeliffe—(a laugh)— while that nobleman, who had been guilty of this great neglect, I say this enormous crime—(cheers) —has since taken his seat in the House of Lords, has become a great authority, and has now been sent by the Government on a special mission to Con stantinople. I need not tell you that I was not in favour of any of that Eastern policy, but I presume Lord Stratford was ; he was one of the great au thors of it, and I say that any man who takes office from his Sovereign and his country as he took it, with a salary of £lO,OOO a-year, and expenses of almost like amount, for the Embassy at Constan tinople, is guilty of a scandalous abandonment of the duty he owes to the Queen and to the country if he pays no attention to such letters as those that Lord Stratford received from an officer of her Ma jesty shut up with our allies at Kars. (Cheers.) If Lord Stratford had been a Russian nobleman and had so behaved, before taking his seat in the House of Peers and going on a special mission to Constan tinople he would have had the advantage of going on a special mission to Siberia—(cheers and laugh ter)—while if he had been an ambassador of the United States of America—but I cannot follow out the illustration, because in the United States there is no family influence, there is no power such as that wielded by our great provincial potentates— there is nothing in that country to shield an officer of the State from public reprobation, and therefore I am quite certain that no person deputed from the United Stites could by any possibility be guilty of the abandonment of duty which was manifested. by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. (Cheers.) Whenever you get a House of Commons that fairly represents the nation, with a Cabinet that fairly represents the House of Commons—(hear)—if there be any other Lord Stratford I would not like to predict precisely what would befall him ; but I believe that such a man, with such a temper—for it was a question of temper—will not receive under such circumstances high and continuous employment from the Govern ment of this country. (Cheers.) I say we have a right, be it in peace, be it in war, when we employ men in the service of the Crown and of the State, and pay them for their labour, to all their energies and to all their devotion. (Cheers.) This question of Parliamentary reform, then, is a great and serious question. I want to give a word of warning to those persons who are now engaged, if there be any engaged, in constructing a Reform Bill for the next session. Let them not bring in a delu sive and sham measure. (Cheers.) Universal suf frage, equal distribution, vote by ballot—any of these points may or may not be perilous ; but if there be one thing more distinctly perilous than another to the ruling classes in this country it is that now, when they .are committed to at least a temporary—l wish it were a permanent—settle ment of this great question, they should bring for ward and pass a bill which, while it offers you something great in the way of constitutional free dom, is found immediately after it has passed to be nothing but a delusion and a sham. (Cheers.) It will disappoint everybsdy ; it will exasperate all the reformers ; it will render a feeling which is now not bitter both bitter and malignant, and within 12 months after the bill has passed and the cheat is discovered we shall be entered in all probability upon another agitation, but an agitation of a very different character from any we have yet seen. (Cheers.) Let us have a real bill, a good bill, or no bill at all. The question at this moment is in the hands of the enemy. We stand the risk - of having brought before us what I will describe as " a coun try gentleman's reform bill." The country gentle men have not been notorious for their sympathies in favour of reform. We have always been carrying on for the last 30 years and more a steady and per petual war against the predominance and the power of the country gentlemen in Parliament. If we look at their past policy we shall not have much confidence in their proposed measure. Their wars, their debts, their taxes, placed upon the bulk of the people, their stout opposition to the Re form Bill of 1832—a1l this leads us greatly to suspect tkem ; and I confess for my own part I wish the question of reform were in the hands of Reformers—in the hands of men of whose sympa thies with respect to it we could not have,from their past lives, the shadow of a doubt. (Cheers.) I have great fears that until you have a Ministry in which there are men who are really in favour of reform, and of an honest reform s you are likely to get any such measure as the most moderate among us ought to be in the least satisfied with. (Hear, hear.) I must warn you against one phrase which I find our friends—we cannot now call any of them our opponents—the bewildered Reformers are be ginning to use. They say we , must not on any ac count "Americanize" our institutions. Now, I know only one institution in America of which the Americans need to be very greatly ashamed—and that institution was established under the Mon archy, although, unfortunately, it has .lived and flourished under the Republic. They tell us that in America numbers overwhelm property and edu cation. Well, but numbers have not overwhelmed property and education in England ; and yet look at legislation in England. Look at our wars, look at our debt, look at our taxes, look at this great fact,—that every improvement of the last 40 years has been an improvement which numbers, and num bers only, have wrested from the property, and what they call the education of the country. (Cheers.) Our education is fairly represented by our Universities, but I say now, as I have said be fore, that if the Legislature of England, if the Par liament of England had been guided for 30 y ears past according to the counsels of the representatives of the Universities, England, instead of being a country of law - and order, would have been long before this a country . of anarchy and of revolution. (Cheeri:) r-America is a strange bugbear. There are 32 at least, if not 33, independent and sovereign States in the United States of America. Now, I am not one of those who believe that you cannot be free and happy under a monarchy such as ours. lam not proposing—l am the last person to propose—that the institutions of this country should be modelled upon the plan of some other country, because it is the plan of some other country; but I say that if we are at liberty to draw science, products for our manufac tures, and literature from every country in the world, why should we not, if we see anything good in the politics of another country, be equally at liberty'to take a lesson in that respect also ? (Hear.) Speaking generally, in all the sovereign and inde pendent States of America there is a franchise as wide as that which I have proposed to-night—there is an exact equal allotment of members to the elec tors, and there is throughout most of the States the protection of the ballot. Yet, in America, we find law, order, property secure, and a population in the enjoyment of physical comforts and abundance, such as are not known to the great body of the people in this country, and which never nave been known in any country in any age of the world be fore. (Hear.) Now, will any man dare to tell m e - in the presence of this audience that the English nation in England. is a worse nation than the Eng lish nation in America,? Are we less educated, ar we less industrious, are we less moral, are we les subject to the law, are we less disposed to submit t all the just requirements of the Government ? If we are so, and if the English nation in America excels us in all these particulars, does it not look. very much as if the institutions in England are not as good in the training and rearing of a nation as the institutions in the United States ? Ido not say that, but those persons who say that the franchise, the distribution, and the ballot, which operate so well in America would be perilous in England, do, what I will not do—they libel the people of this country, and they libel our institutions. (Cheers.) Now, I have a suggestion to make, which I hope somebody will act upon. The Reformers now are more numerous than ever they were before. Why should they not by some arrangement have their own Reform Bill—have it introduced into Par liament and supported with all the strength of this great national party ; and if it be a bill sensibly better than the bill that is being prepared for us in Downinrstreet, why should we not with all the unanimity of which we are capable—by public meetings, by petitions, and when the proper time comes by presenting our selves at the polling-booths—do everything m our power to pass that measure into law? (Cheers.) I say that we are great in numbers ; that united we are great in strength ; that we arc invincible in the solidity of our arguments ; that we are altogether unassailable in the justice of our cause. (Cheers.) Shall we then, I ask you, even for a moment be hopeless of our great cause ? I feel almost ashamed even to argue it to such a meeting as this. I call to mind where I am, and who are those whom I see before me. (Cheers.) Am I not in the town of Bir mingham—England's central capital ; and do not those eyes look upon the sons of those who, not 30 years ago, shook the fabric of privilege to its base ? (Cheers.) Not a few of the strong men of that time are now white with age. They approach the confines of their mortal day. Its .eyening is cheered with the remembrance of that great contest, and they rejoice in the freedom they have won. Shall their sons be less noble than they ? (Cries of "No, no.") Shall the fire which they kindled be extinguished with you ? (Cries of " No, no," and cheering.) Why, I see the answer in every face. You are resolved that the legacy which they bequeathed to you you will hand down in an accumulated wealth of free dom to your children. (Cheers.) As for me, my voice is feeble. I feel now sensibly and painfully that I am not what I was. I speak with a diminished fire ; I act with a lessened force; but as I am, my coun trymen and my constituents, I will, if you will let me, be found in your ranks in the impending strug gle. (The hon. gentleman sat down amid great cheering, which was renewed again and again, the audience rising and waving their hats and hand kerchiefs in the most enthusiastic manner.) Alderman MANTON, in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Bright for his excellent address, expressed the pleasure he felt in reflecting that he (Alderman Manton) was instrumental in introducing him to the constituency of Birmingham, and he hoped ho would long continue to fulfil the duties of his pre sent situation. (Loud cheers.) Mr. G. EDMONDS seconded the motion, which upon being put by the Mayor was carried amid protracted acclamation. Mr. BRIGHT briefly acknowledged the vote, and thanks being voted to the Mayor for his conduct hi the chair, the immense assembly separated. " THE TIMES," BROTHER JONATHAN, AND THE ELECTRIC' TELEGRAPH. It is difficult to keep up a fast friendship with a man who has frequent fits of the gout, or a chronic toothache, or an excoriated epidermis. He may be a very valuable man to know, and au fond he may have a real affection for you. But you can never be quite free and unconstrained in your com panionship with him ; you are always afraid of coming a little too near his gouty toe, or opening a window and letting in a cold draught that may set his teeth and temper raging . ; if you poke . ever so gentle a bit of fun at him it is not certain he will not throw his crutch at your head ; and if you nudge him playfully in the ribs he is almost sure to scream and abuse you. Ile may be almost over whelmingly effusive m his moments of intermittent good humour, but suddenly comes that twinge in the toe, and down go the corners of his mouth, or that wrack of pain, and up goes his hand to his face, and then he becomes touchy and testy and quarrelsome, and you are tempted to say, " Con found the fellow, I'll let him alone. He's a capital companion when in good humour, and there is no one I'd rather have by my side in case of a fight ; but he is so crotchety and uncertain that I can never be sure that I should have him on my side. If we got into a melee he would be as likely to break my head as that of one of our antagonists ;" and thus you grow more polite and less friendly, and your hot-tempered friend, who repressed your familiarities, chafes at your indifference. Will our newly-made neighbours on the other side of the Atlantic, now only just a cable's length off, pardon us if we apply this passing reflection to them ? Not that we would for a moment insinuate that they, in their body politic, are afflicted with gout or with toothache ; for our flat-footed young friend strides with the tread of a juvenile giant, and his grinders are so hale that, having munched up half a new world, he is rather suspected of in dulging gastronomic designs upon other portions of it. In fact, if he has a fault in respect of his teeth, it consists in just a little too much fondness for showing them. But there is something rather wrong about our friend's skin. The oil of human kindness in which he was dipped was a little hot, and has scalded off the outer cuticle. His sensa tions seem to be rather akin to those of the ancient invaders of England, morsels of whose skin are still under the nail-heads of our old church doors ; or to those of that illused saint who stands, in we forget which continental cathedral, draped in his flayed off hide. He quivers to every touch; and but that his muscles are large, and his strength and temper are dangerous to any one volunteering the friendly operation, a good healthy tar-and-feathering would do him a world of good. It is our own fate always to be in a difficulty with our sturdy friend. We can never be quick enough to meet his hot fits of affection, or to get out of the way when the bootjack and the goutstool are 'flying across the room. We are always doing something to congeal his gushing sympathies or to heighten his ill temper. The New York Morning Courier takes us to task for this, our misconduct, in a spirit of courteous admonition, which, as it is not very common to the other side of the Atlantic, may not be passed over without the courtesy of a reply. Our transatlantic remonstrant, after a gene ral charge of ancient grievances, which, as they are not specified, cannot be refuted, does us the justice to admit that the Times, when speaking of " our country and its institutions, has usually done so in a fair spirit." Well, that is something. We have not been false to the fundamentals of friendship. We may have thought it a matter of duty to tell him we thought he was rather sharp in foreclosing the mortgage on that Mexican's estate, or that he must not disgrace himself in the eyes of his country by stealing that Spaniard's tobacco-box, or that he ought to keep his sons from riding over his poor neighbours, or that we should be obliged to him not to poach more than he could help in our fishponds, and we have even gone so far as gently and meekly to hint a complaint to him of the nuisance arising from the cries of that black servant whom he is always thrashing. We have never, it is true, clone any of these things without putting him into a terrific passion, but we cannot in our conscience think we were in fault ; for even the indict ment against us admits that he and his family have always been treated with due respect, and that even our friendly remonstrances have been made in a fair spirit. Our new crime is, however, we feel, most unpardonable. We have made a mis take about the Transatlantic Telegraph. Cousin Jonathan intended to be sublime, and we in our error fancied lie intended to be ridiculous. We un happily mistook his pathos for bathos: He enter tained us with a performance which he intended to be most affecting, and we had the misfortune to think it was a farce which he meant us to laugh at. So we poked our little bit of fun at him in return, and with due promptitude the goutstools and the bootjacks came flying about our ears; next morn ing came the more formal and courteous epistle to which we are now replying. Now, our New York contemporary is much mistaken if he supposes that uch the people of England ar c n ot quite as pleased at the apparent accomplishment of an in stantaneous communication between the two nations as the people of America were. There was some promptitude in the Royal message ; a confidence which could only be inspired by strong interest and a strong hope was manifested by the buyers who ran the shares up to par on the Liverpool Exchange ; and we cannot think that we ourselves were wanting to the occasion. We took the best means in our power to secure a clever and graphic history of the operation, and if our English ship of war had foun dered in the tempest we should have had our own special cause for mourning ; we celebrated the suc cess with as much glorification as we soberly could, and it is not muck more than a month since we quoted from the New York papers acknowledg ments to the Ti mes for being the only paper whic, on the day of the arrival of the news, had devoted a leader to th e su bj ec t. H ow far - we may be en titled to that distinguishing praise we io not know ; it was given us, and we quote it therefore against the donors. But we did laugh. The fact is not to be denied. But how could we do otherwise ? If New York had piped to London any rational tune, London might have danced to it; but Yankee Doodle" was played so fast and loud that no English feet could keep time.to it. • The outward methods of expres sion of great joy were strange to ourisland humour. The " Young Men's Democratic Union Club accompanied by a choric band," :serenading Mr. Field, was an oddity in our eyes. Some of us have seen real _ serenades in Italy, and we all have seen mock serenades at our opera-houses, but when the idea is suggested of it middlciged gentleman roused from his sleep and struggling into his clothes in order to appear upon a balcony to be played to by votive male admirers equ ipped with fiddles and mouth-organs our English gravity is overtaxed and will explode. Then, when the last scene came, and the illumination ended with the combustion of the City-hall, and when we were entertained with the appearance of the Mayor of New York at the end of the performance facetiously announcing that the Lord Mayor of London had, in a higher strain of joyous frenzy, ordered the London Mansion-house and the Palace of West minster to be lit up as a responsive bonfire, no one could have imagined that we were expected to keep countenance under pain of being accused of " laughing at American enthusiasm." Let us ask the New York Courier, did not the more sober people in New York smile long before we laughed ? And, now that a little time has gone by, do not the actors in this odd demonstra tion laugh at their own folly betwixt whiles of their wiser and sadder labour of building up their City-hall ? Let us assure our too senitive kinsmen that we only mirror the sehtiments of the English people when we treat in a fair spirit both their country and their instit u ti ons ; an d th a t if we scold their errors, withstand their encroachments, and laugh at their extravagances, we can yet respect their power, - honomPtheir good qualities, and put high value on their friendship.—Times. COUYTR l' MARKETS. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE-OCT. 26. At this morning's market, with a fair show of wheati the trade was languid, but the holders of both English and foreign parcels declined to make any concession in price. A limited trade in flour, but Saturday's rates supported. In barley very little doing. Oats and beans more plentiful, and difficult to quit, except on lower terms. Peas dull, but unchanged in value. HULL—Ocr 26. There was a fair supply of wheat from the farmers to day, and transactions were liinited at a decline of is to 2s per qr. Not much doing in foreign parcels, of which the arrivals are fair, and prices remain alfidut the same as last quoted. A steady inquiry for good grinding parcels of bar ley, but all other kinds is to 2s per qr. cheaper. Peas in limited request. Oats steady. Beans held for an advance, which checked sales. Wheat.... Old white.... per qr Old red New white . • ?, ~ New red ... • , 9 Dantzic, Konb.,lcc. old white 508 Od to 54s (21 Dutch, Belgian, and French 478 Od to 48s ' Oa, Baltic and H am b urg , re d . . 458 Od to 47s Oa St. Petersbur g an d Riga,, Old. 40s Od to 42s Od Barley.... English malting 32s Od to 36s Od Grinding 3OB Od to 32s Od. Saal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danish 328 Od to 33s Od Grinding 27s Od to 29s Od Oats English, old Archangel and Riga, per st lB Old to is la Friesland and Dutch is lid to is 24 Swedish and Danish Osllid to is id Beans ....English, old, per qr New pigeon 42s Od to 43s Od New tick. 4ls Od to 42s Od Etian Peas Foreign breakers Grinding Tares ....Winter Bss Od to 90s 0 _ ,a Indian • Corn Linseed, feeding s4s Od to 57s a„, , crushing Linseed bakes (Hull) £9 7 6to £9 10 0 Foreign BlO oto 9 0 0 Rape cakes ' 6 5 oto 610 0 , Bones 514 oto 517 ° • ROCHDALE—OcT. 26. The trade in most articles is stationary, but, holders of oatmeal conceding a reduction of Is, a fair quantity changed hands. In the provision market there was a large show 01 potatoes, and the trade was heavy, with lower prices at the 'close. Flukes, 9s to 9s 6d ; radicals, 10s per 2521 b. CORK—OcT. 26. At this morning's market there was very little doing ill grain, and prices remained without much change. Wheat 17s to 21s Oats.. lOs to 1 311 White do 15s to 22s Beans, new.. —s to - Barley lOs to 16s Ditto, old . —s to -- -45 In the butter market upwards of 2,000 firkins were oil sale. Prices—First quality, 104 s; second, 101 s; third, 9 34 fourth, 80s ; fifth, 705.; sixth, 50s. BELFAST—OcT. 25. The market was dull, and the business transacted in all descriptions of grain manifested no improvement on the prices of last day. .00T. 26. t 3: there was a fair show of mess was limited, at about DUBLIN- At this corn market to-d 1 wheat, and the amount of bu last week's prices. s. d. s. d. s . d. lg . d. Wheat, white.. 22 6to 24 6 Do., new Do., red 2l 6to 22 6 Bere Do., new .... 21 6t024 6 Rapeseed Barley Oats 11 3to 12 9 Bakers' flour .. 14 6to Do., black ll otol2 0 Indian corn .. 30 oto3l v BRISTOL SUGAR—Our. 27. There continues to be a very good demand for sugar of all kinds, with very little British plantation offering. The prices are still very firm. Some sales have been made in foreign. Rum is in good demand, and prices are well main" tamed. COAL MAR. (Prices of Coal per Ton at ,KET-0 CT. 27. the close of the market.) s. d. Davison's West Hartley 14 •9 Bates' W. Hartley.. l4 0 Haswell Gas. l3 0 Howard'sWestHartleyl4 9 Byass's Bebside West Hartley .14 6 North Percy Hartley ..13 6 Walker Primrose • 13 0 Buddle's W. Hartley 14 9 Tanfield Moor 12 9 Tanfield Moor Butes 12 9 Wylam 16 0 Nixon's Merthyr 2l 0 Powell' s Duffryn Steam 21 0 Benton's Wst Hartley.l4 9 Bower's West Hartley.l4 9 Walls End. s. cl• Harvey 16 0 0 Jesmond . l6 Framwellgate l7 9 West Stanley 15 6 Bell • • l6 0, South Hetton 19 0 Stewart's • , l9 0 Kelloe lB 3 1 South Kelloe lB n Thorpe 18 0 Trimdon. Thornky l4 0 Evenvrood .... l6 0 Acorn Close 17 9 Gosforth l6 6 Eden 17 9n 3 Russell's Hetton 17 u Kepier Grange lB Heugh Hall 18 0 Harton l6 9 Wharncliffe 17 3 Hunwick 14 3 Whitworth 14 6 Shincliffe.. l7 3 Lambton lB 6 Byron... Walls End. Bradyll's Hetton 18 0 Hartlepool. lB 3 South Hartlepool 17 6 Caradoc Riddell 16 6 Cassop lB 0 Hetton 19 3 Haswell l9 3 Ships at market, ;, 20 B—sold, 148. SUDDEN DEATH AT THE LIVERPOOL COLLEGIATE ScnoßiL.—On Monday night, at the meeting of the Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews, and just when the Lord Bishop of Chester had begun his ad' dress, a person named Roland Hughes, a joiner and builder, residing in Holden-street, Windsor, fell down in a fit in the body of the hall, and expired in a few minutes. This occur' rence cast a-gloom on the proceedings, and Dr. M‘Neile alluded to the circumstance in the course of an eloquent address. As the deceased died of disease of the heart there was no inquest held on the body._ [ADVERTISEMENT.I—Rarey'iI Horse snd Cattle Improv ing Food is equally a apted to improve the stamina of ill conditioned Horses, Cows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. It causes no extra expense, as it contains far m ore and better nourishment than its cost of lid. per feed sup plies in corn and hay ; h ence ens ures an actual saving 10 the keep. But its principal advantages are a great improve ment in the digestive functions, the stamina and general condition of horses enabling them to perform far more labour without getting distressed. It imparts new vigour to sick, debilitated, or old apparently worn-out horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattre generally, and proves the milk in cows, as it enables them to extract the entire nourishment out of everything they feed on, Rare,' and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, Piccadilly, L on don. Packed in tins of about 90 feeds, lls. ; in casks of about 45 0 feeds, 50s. ; of about 1,000 feeds, £5, being about lid. per feed. BIRTHS. BALroult.---Ort the 26th inst., at Grove House, Putne9 , the wife of Edmund Balfour, Esq.., .of a daughter. COLLARD. —On the 26th inst., at•Herne Bay, the wife of Edward Reynolds Collard, of a son. FIELD.--On the 26th inst., at Twickenham, the wife of Joshua Field, jim., Esq., of a son. TRAVERS.—On the 25th inst., at East Bergholt, Suffolk, the wife of Captain Otho. Travers, of a son. MARRIAGES. GLADSTONE—FIELD.—On the 26th inst., at the Conge gational Church, Clapham, Thomas Hill Gladstone, son of John Gladstone, Esq., f Stockwell Lodge, Surrey, to Matilda, only daughter of Joshua Field, Esq., F.R.S., of Balham, Surrey. VALLETORT lIAMILTON.—On the 26th inst., at St James's Church, Piccadilly, Viscount Valletort, eldest son of the Earl and Countess of Mount Edgcumbe, to Lady Katherine Elizabeth Hamilton, fourth daughter of the Marquis and Marchioness of Abercorn. DEATHS. BUCKLEY.—On the 18th inst.,. at Hawarden, Eugene Buckley, Esq., C.E., aged 60. BUCKNELL.—On the 21st inst., Mr. Henry Geo. Bucknelli at Chelsea late of Bedford, aged 20. BOYD.—On the 25th inst., at 45, Cambridge-terrace, Hyde park, Janet, relict of the late Edward Boyd, Esq., O f Merton-hall, Wigtonshire, N.B. GARLAND. — On the 19th inst., at 60, South Molton-street , Bond-street, Miss Christiana Greenwollexs Lloyd Gar land, aged 90. INSOLE. — On the 23d inst., at his sea-side residence, Pew arth, Mr. B. It. Insole, of Cardiff, aged 30. TAPP.—On the 26th inst., at St. Leonard's-on-Sea, Cho" James Tapp, Esq., of the London and Westminster Bank , aged 36. VAN SANDAII.—On the 26th inst., at 1, Great Coram-si. , Andrew Barna r d, th e eldest son of Andrew van Sandatl? Esq., aged 20. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG/ of No. 112, St ran d, P r i nter, at The Sun Office, No. 1121 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county o f Middlesex, Thursday, October 28, 1868. • v.,