The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

signal for that agitation and that dissatisfaction out of doors which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Horsman) depre cated. (Cheers.) Mr. J. H. PHILIPPS always felt the greatest reluct ance to affirm an abstract resolution, especially when it had reference to a bill before Parliament. The right hon. gen tleman the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) pre dicted the other night that if the bill passed as it stood, there would hereafter be an " ugly rush" to pass the line which excluded the working classes. He (Mr. Philipps) believed that if the franchise could only be reached through taxation, that " ugly rush" would be converted into a pace as solemn and deliberate as the "Dead March in Saul." (Laughter.) Reserving to himself the right to take what ever course he pleased, if the bill should come before them on the question of the second reading, he should vote against the resolution of the noble lord, because it tended to create an inconvenient precedent, and to prevent fair Parliamentory discussion. Mr. C. FORSTER said that on the previous night the noble lord the member for Stamford had done him the honour to refer to something which he had recently said to his constituents. What he said, or meant to say, was that as respected the bill under discussion there was perfect agreement between the noble lord the member for London and the hon. memberfor Birmingham,and that they would be found walking into the same lobby. As a borough member, he of course felt most interested in the operation of the bill with regard to the representation of the bo roughs. Like his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, be should have preferred meeting this bill with a direct ne gative, but not having the opportunity of doing that, he should, whatever might be the ulterior consequences, vote f or the resolution of the noble lord. Mr. STANHOPE said there were two points in which, as a county member, he naturally felt especially interested —one relating to the 40s. freeholds in boroughs, and the other to the £lO franchise in counties. As regarded the 40s. freeholds, he did not consider it right in principle to deprive people of a franchise which had once been granted ; but, on the other hand, he had never been able to understand why a person who lived in a borough should be permitted to vote for the county, and a person who lived at a distance from a borough should not be allowed to vote for that borough, the property possessed by both being the same. It appeared to him that there were but two principles on which the house could act in this matter. He had a few words to say on the principle of the bill. Were he to consider it as a mere disjointed set of clauses, many of them excellent, while some were more questionable, he might not trouble the house on this point. But he found that the principle of the measure was the assimilation of the town and county voters. If he were called upon to affirm that as the right principle of his political life, he must say that he felt it was surrounded with manifold bjections and however much it might distress him, he s h ou ld feel it 'his duty to oppose that principle. But at the same time he never would, on any consideration, give his sanction to the sort of amendment now before the house. Such amendments had lately be come too prevalent. It was an amendment affirming nothing, and put forward with a view of catching every body—an amendment so general, that while it took in men of all sides, it would not commit the person proposing it to any course whatever—(cheers) —an amendment so vague that he defied anybody to say what was its real meaning. (Cheers.) It asserted that nc measure which did not lower the franchise would be satisfactory—but to what extent ? Was it to be a£6 or a£s franchise ? Was it to be man hood or universal suffrage ? (Cheers.) The noble lord re fused to give any statement of his views on this matter. (Hear, hear.) If the noble lord and his friends were dis satisfied with the principle of the bill, let them, as he had done, manfully say so ; but do not let them from mere per sonal motives endeavour to throw out a bill by an amend ment every part of which might be introduced in committee. (Cheers.) Mr. DODSON had heard it said that they ought Rot to vote against this bill without knowing what measure was to be brought m next. His answer to that was, he voted against this bill because it was a bad bill, and should the next bill be no better, he should vote against that also. As to the resolution, every kind of objection had been raised against it. It. meant too much—it meant too little—it meant everything—it meant nothing. Now to his mind the reso lution affirmed two points of great importance—points so important that no step ought to be taken with the Govern ment measure until those leading principles had been affirmed by the house. Indeed, the resolutions seemed to him to be an act of kindness to the Government. If they passed the Government had only to follow the course which it took on the India Bill, which it followed on the Jew Bill and the Voters at Elections Bill, and acquiescing in the resolutions alter their measure accordingly. The Govern ment, however, had as yet only defended to a certain extent their measure,and it had been insisted thatthe system of county voters in boroughs was an anomaly. But if they touched everything connected with our representative system where were they to stop ? It was said that there could be no rea son why a person having property in a borough should have a vote for the county ; but the reason for that was plain enough. Property in the borough was no less pro perty in the county in which that borough was situate, and the holder of that property had as much an interest in the county representation as if the property were situate in the county. He believed that the tendency of this bill was to create a broad line of demarcation between different classes, and as such he should give it his opposition. Mr. VANSITTART had listened with considerable at- tention to the speech of the noble lord the member for Lon don in the hope of hearing some reasons for the mischievous amendment now under discussion. He had, however, heard no such reason, and to his mind the noble lord appeared to be smarting under the want of success which attended his efforts in the cause of reform in 1854. He was aware that there were certain members of the other side, who were very anxious to give the right of representation to those who hitherto had been represented by their leaders, rulers, and paymasters--(ironical cheers)—and he would remind the house that these gentlemen also wished to consign a large number of peers to perdition. (Laughter.) With respect to the savings bank franchise, Mr. Wright, the manager of the Windsor bank, had favoured' him with a return by which it appeared that 20 per cent. of the depositors would obtain the franchise under the clause. (Hear.) He trusted that in committee on the bill some means might be found to make the machinery of registration less expensive, and to counteract the baneful influence exercised by rate col lectors at the time of a general election. Mr. CROSSLEY.—A good deal had been said of the time which had been occupied by reform, and they were told that it had been a cabinet question ever since 1851. It was said that bills had been introduced, and had been withdrawn, and that this was the only one which they were called upon to read a second time. He thought it very possible that this bill might pass into a law, and still leave the question of reform as unsettled as it had found it. (Hear, hear.) Who now called for reform ? It was neither the higher nor the middle classes, but those who were left out in the bill of 1832, namely, the working classes of this country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the Secretary for India asked how a man was to be distinguised as belonging to the working class. His (Mr. Crossley's) definition was, the man who de pended on the labour of his hands for the bread of life. Now that class, he contended, had been left out in the bill of 1832, and that they were also left out in the government bill of 1859. (Hear, hear.) He thought that r ight hon. gentle men opposite had shown great industry, and had devoted most praiseworthy attention to the business of the country, while they had most favourably impressed all who had found it necessary to trouble them with deputations. For these reasons he should be exceedingly sorry to give any vote which should have the effect of turning them out of office, the more especially as there was no one on that (the opposition) side of the house who had proved himself fit to lead the liberal party. So lately as Wednesday last they found the two noble lords who assumed the leadership ab sent from their posts, and, indeed, they had so often de serted their followers in the lobby that they were now left with scarcely any followers to desert. (Ministerial cheers.) The conduct of the noble lord the member for Lynn had been very different. Openly and manfully the noble lord had voted for the abolition of church-rates, and he (Mr. Crossley) regretted that the noble lord must, according to rule, serve a seven years' apprenticeship before his attain ment of the premiership. For his part he should rather have a horse who had his work sal in him, than one who had been completely used up. (Cheers and laughter.) With great regret he should give a vote the effect of which must be to turn out the government, but still he could not sup port the second reading of a bill which on the face of it re fused the admission of the working classes to the franchise. (Hear, hear.) Mr. KNIGHTLEY said that the peculiarity of the go vernment bill was that, like the gold and silver shield in the tub, it presented a different aspect according as it was looked at from different sides of the house. The objection he had always held to an extension of the county franchise was very much mitigated by the bill of the Government, but still he held that you should not enlarge the county constituency unles s you at the same time enlarge the county representation. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that the counties had never yet had their fair share of the repre sentation. As for the resolution of the noble lord, he under stood the noble lord's wish to be that the freeholders should remain untouched. But what was the present state of the law in this respect, and how did it operate 2 If a man had a small house and garden, worth £l2 a year, he had out of them two votes, one for the county and one for the borough, while another man, his neighbour, might be worth £l,OOO a year and have only one. This arrangement operated heavily against the county interest. Take Middlesex for instance. In that county, out of 17,000 voters, one half voted for property within represented boroughs. In Lan cashire, out of 20,000, 12,000 held similar qualifications. It was, therefore, quite obvious that in those counties, the towns, as well as their own members, returned also the members for the county. (Hear, hear.) The p resen t bill was, in fact, on l ya copy of that of the noble lord ; and there was even a greater authority, that of the late premier, in favour of the p rin ciple. On the same occasi on t h e noble lord the member for Tiverton eulogised this sort of dis franchisement, as tending to preserve . the balance between Pe county and town, and ensuring an effici ent _ and io inde p e ndent deprive nd the t n representation for both. (Hear' hear.) working classes in rural district s of any privileges which were enjoyed by their brethren in the boroughs, would be an injustice so gross and so monstrous, , tha , t if it were per petrated it would ere long lead to that ug ly rush" which had been prophesied by a right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) Under these circumstances he (Mr. Knightley) should sup port the second reading, though he would frankly own that the bill was not at present in a form of which he could wholly approve. (Cheers.) Mr. S. HERBERT (who spoke from the front opposition bench below the gangway) confessed that he had been much astonished by the speeches which he had heard in the course of the present debate. If he were blind he should have thought that the orations which had been delivered from the other side of the house were spoken on that, and vice versa. (Hear, bear.) He did not himself go so far as some of his Conservative friends. He was not prepared for electoral dis tricts, and he was not ready to argue the whole question of the representation upon a mere numerical calculation of aliquot parts. (Hear.) He had listened, as everybody must have done, with admiration and delight to the speech of the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies. (Cheers.) But in the midst of that splendid declamation he had listened in vain for any indication of some course which the Goveriuneut might adopt in order to extricate the house from the difficulty in which they found themselves placed. The right hon. gentleman spoke to them of what might be done in committee, and askedtwhy those who were opposed to the bill did not vote against the second reading instead of moving a resolution by way of amendment. He said that there were questions relating to the sa v i ngs b ati k qualification, to lodgers, to voting papers, a n d to other matters ; and he added, " Prove your case. Those are questions for committee." Of course they were ( med i ans for committee. Who questioned it ? No doubt they could make many amendments in committee. (Hear, hear.) B ut they were asked to vote for this bill under very peculiar c i rcums tances. The Government proposed to make certain changes which ex cited dissatisfaction amongst some mem bers of the house. The Secretary of State for India said, guie e d i that it was only by error and oversight that the vested interests of the freeholders had not been saved. He (Mr. Herbert) was not disposed to admit that this was a case of vested interest—it was something far higher than an interest—it was a right. (Cheers.) Welt, but the noble lord said it was an error, and the Chanc2.llor of the Exchequer had himself proposed to remedy it ; but still, he said, that this clause must not in any net ect be sup posed to militate against the principles of ri e bill which were to disenfranchise neither borough nor county voter— though some were "disqrialified"—(hear, hear)—and to secure a uniformity of franchise. The noble lord said that the amendment, if carried, would be fatal to the bill. What would be fatal to the bill ? Was it the first part—that which related to the freeholders whose vested interests had been accidentally overlooked, and whose case had been so sagaciously met by the suggestion of the member for Dor setshire ? (Hear, hear.) Or, was it the second part of the resolution that would be fatal to the bill ? He could not tell. If it were, then uniformity was the principle of the bill ; and it was because the resolution touched that unifor mity that it would be fatal to the measure. (Hear, hear ) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said, that as it would be open to any member to move amendments in committee, he hoped the Government would not be de barred from pursuing the same course. Thus, in one sen tence they were invited to go into committee ; in another they were repelled from it. (Hear) It was said that there was the greatest difference of opinion on the Oppo sition side of the house upon all the most important ques tions of reform. He (Mr. Herbert) did not deny that. There were differences of opinion amongst the Opposition upon church-rates, upon the ballot, upon this bill, upon the disfranchisement of small boroughs, and upon the advisa bility of making a more or less democratic change in the constitution. (Ministerial cheers.) But were those charges confined to that side of the house ? (Hear. hear.) He looked on the other side, and what did he find ? Differences of opinion upon church-rates, upon the ballot, and upon the disfranchisement of boroughs. (Ministerialocries of "No, no," and counter cheers.) To what was the objection made ? (Cries of " The ballot.") Were the differences of opinion confined even to the house ? Were they not to be found even in the Cabinet ? (Opposition cheers.) He only wanted to point out the position in which the house was placed—they were all in respect of differences of opinion in the same boat. (Hear hear.) The other night the noble lord the member for L e i ces tershire (Lord J . Manners) made a strong appeal on behalf of the Government bill on the subject of church rates ; but the noble lord the Secretary for India voted against that appeal. (Opposition cheers.) He believed, also that the noble lord's (Lord Stanley's) opinions were not unfavourable to the ballot. (No, no.) Well, his (Mr. H e rbert's) authority might be but slender, but he would tell the house what it was. He read that the ,noble lord, a short time ago, received an invitation to a dinner held by certain friends of the cause of the ballot, to celebrate the arrival, he believed, of some gentleman from Australia. (A laugh.) The noble lord did not attend ; but what was his answer ? He simply regretted that a pre-engagement would not allow him to attend. (Laughter.) Well, that did not imply any very strong objection to the ballot. (Oh, oh.) Usually, a refusal couched in those terms did not imply a rooted objection.' Suppose, for instance, the hon. member for North Warwickshire were invited to attend the celebra tion of high mass by Cardinal Wiseman—(roars of laughter) —he would probabiy couch his refusal in terms somewhat stronger than a regret that previous engagements would de prive him of the pleasure. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr. Herbert) hoped that before long they would be able to ar rive at something like a sound conclusion as to what was really the meaning of the Government with respect to the resolution of the noble lord, which they at present looked upon as a hostile attack—(cheers, and counter cheers)—but the great principles of which, he believed, were identical with the opinions entertained by a great number of gentle men sitting not only on the opposition benches, but behind the Government themselves. (Cheers.) The Secretary of State for the Colonies stated that the present ministrystood as a shield, the one and only bulwark between the consti tution of the country and those extreme demagogic adven turers who met in Hyde-park, and who demanded manhood suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot. If that was true (which it was not) he (Mr. Herbert) should look with alarm on the prospects of this country. (Loud oppo sition cheers.) The right honourable gentleman made a speech in defence of our mixed institutions, our tempered liberty, and our limited monarchy; but one would have thought that such a speech would surely have been in defence of a bill which made no innovation upon the con stitution and which started no new principles. (Hear, hear.) The house was a very mixed body. It was so, in fact, to a degree whieh he hever knew to be before. (Laughter.) The noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that his Government were in a minority, but that party Government was broken up, that the house was divided into sections, and that all Go vernments must for the future depend not upon old organi sations but upon the measures which they proposed—that they must prepare measures and press them forward ; carry them, if good ; and if bad, be prepared to see them fall to the ground; that all Government measures must, in short, be tentative, and that all Governments must rely upon the clear insight they possessed into the wishes of the people and of the house. (Hear.) He (Mr. Herbert) believed that the whole system of party government was pretty nearly at an end. The change in our policy would be very diffi cult, and would require the Minister, who was leader of the house, to display great tact and ability—qualities which he was bound to say the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) did exhibit. (Cheers.) The change, he repeated, would be a very difficult and dangerous one, but he hoped the Go vernment would not be so unwise as to refuse to listen to the voice of a large portion of that house, who, bound to gether by no party ties, were trying to lead them in the direction which they believed the safety of the country re quired. (Cheers.) If this were any party division, if it were merely designed to turn out the Government, he must frankly confess that in the present state of things he should very much regret it. (A laugh.) Hon gentlemen_did not seem disposed to give him credit for sincerity in that decla ration but he hoped the house would believe that men might be actuated by something higher than a mere party motive. (Loud cheers.) He should for his part be sorry to think that hon. gentlemen opposite, in resisting the mo tion of the noble lord, were merely animated by a wish to retain office. (Cheers.) He hoped that the house would at any rate do them (the Oppositisn) the justice to think that in discussing this grave and weighty question, they had motives far more important than the mere transference of persons from one site of the house to the other. (Loud cheers.) What was it that they wanted, and, what that they did not want? (Hear, hear.) They wanted, he apprehended, an extension of the county and of the borough franchise—they wanted, in short, reform. (Hear.) He had seen during the last five or six years this question used in a manner which he thought did not tend to the sta bility of our institutions. (Loud cheers.) He thought that on coming into office the right hon. gentlemen opposite were not only justified, but were compelled, to promise a measure of this kind. At the same time he could not conceal from himself the inconvenience of having questions of this kind brought forward by those gentlemen. The proper and more natural thing would have been for the Whig party to bring in the Reform Bill, because then there would have been no bidding against them for extreme measures, and those who professed Conservative opinions would more naturally have acted as a check upon their legislation, and would possibly have modified the measure. But, underthe present circum stances, bid as high as the Government might, it become a political necessity to the Oppositionto outbid them. (Cheers) The country had lost the value of an Opposition, and also of a Government, in all respects in which the special value of each consisted. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, circumstances had been too strong for them, and they had now to discuss a Reform Bill proposed by a Conservative Government. Hon. gentlemen opposite might allege that they had met the wishes of the country in one respect, they had extended the county franchise. He did not know what had led them to accept the measure of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Locke King) ; but people were under much apprehension on that score. They would say, " Oh, the Government took Mr. Locke King's bill as the foundation of their measure, be cause that bill had been carried over and over again." But was that the case ? The first year the hon. gentleman brought forward his motion (1851), it was in the shape of a bill to "assimilate" the borough and county franchise. That bill was read a second time. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) was Prime Minister • and the second reading was carried in consequence of d issensions on the benches be • hind him. But it was a small division—and it was a snapped division. The bill was read on a Wednesday in a house consisting of 152 members—the ayes being 100 and the noes, 52, majority 48. The noble lord, taking that divi sion as an indication of the feeling of his party against him, resigned. In the following year the hon. gentleman brought in his bill again ; but this time it was thrown out in a larger house—the numbers being for the second reading 149, against it 202, majority 53. (Hear.) During the year the hon. gentleman very properly abstained from putting forward the subject ; but in 1857 what happened ? The noble viscount (Lord Palmerston) opposed the bill on the ground that identity of suffrage would lead to electoral districts. " You would at once have electoral districts," said the noble viscount, " and you would soon have equal ones." (Hear.) The present Chancellor of the Exchequer also said a great many excellent things against identity of suffrage. The only thing in fact in which the right hon. gentleman was wrong was when he said that he could never get himself to propose such a measure. (Laughter.) On that debate he (Mr. Herbert) took exactly the same objection which he felt now, namely, that it would destroy what constituted the great value of the Reform Bill of 1832, namely, that it ad mitted great variety in our representation. The bill was that year thrown out by 192 votes against 179. (Hear.) In the fol lowing year (1858) the hon. gentleman, feeling the force of these arguments, actually altered his bill. It was , in fact, a perfectly new measure; for it was no longer a bill assimi late the county to the borough franchise, but " a bill to amend the county franchise," and the qualification was left blank to be filled up in committee. It was no doubt read a second time; but though that was as early as the 20th of June, and there were plenty of Wednesdays yet to come the hon. gentle man never went into committee with his measure, because he well knew that, with the existing tone and temper of the house, he should not be able to carry it through that ordeal. (Hear.) The present bill was one that moderately exte n d e d the borough and largely extended the county franchise. Those who wish further to extend the borough franchise had that night been described by a great authority as " de magogic adventurers." For his own part he (Mr. Herbert) desired t o see nothing better than a Reform Bill laid on the table by th ose two d x t f h ord e righ t dem ag ogic adventurers"—the right hon. gentle man themem hon.orthe University of o th C o am m b e ri mho dg r e (Mr. Walpol o ), a n for the county o f Oxford Herbert) altogether dise ( us:a Henley). (Cheers.) He (Mr. against anundue extension of forwar t d he t great merit of unifor mityuniformitY wereeelnueryo as it had been put - fi night, as a safe guard thatsuffrage. w he hon. gentleman (Sir E. Lytton) sai d Tonhceerlygohut i i i n w st 7r t e t safe ag-ams t had attained this magic £lO suffrag e , y theso who sought to Americanise un th i efoormi t : o i f ens of this never heard country. But whence came this Was it not a foreign importation The right honsugentlee-f r h an em s c al le d ve th r that hade t n h , os h e n w t h t o h a a t t ta h c o ked de plorable rubbish" talked by clever men before. But this "rubbish" had been the constitution for 400 years, and it had been the talk of. the greatest statesmen and the most far-seeing philosophers the country had ever p ro d uced. (Cheers.) Such language ought rightfully to belong to the Secretary of State for India, who had not the right hon. ba ronet's traditional reverence for the English constitution._ whose mind was less poetical and more philosophic. (Laughter.) For his own part, he was not a democratic re former; but he did want a Reform Bill which would give the country a prospect of stability. (Cheers.) He did not lord (Lord to get a bill like the present, which the no b le (Lord Stanley) said was made to pass, but he wanted a bill that would last. (Cheers.) He would say, with all respect that he had no sympathy with the opinions of his hon. friends behind him, as he had no sympathy for the bill brought in by the right hon. gentleman. He occupied a middle position, which he believed the great mass of hon. members and of the country also held. He was attached to our old institutions, which he looked upon as a sacred tra dition—a tradition which we were bound to maintain, and to transmit, enlarged and improved, but still unimpaired, to our posterity. (Cheers.) These were the sentiments which he cherished, and he should not be deterred from expressing them, even by the risk of causing a temporary annoyance to his friends around him. (Hoar, hear.) The bill he did not consider at all met the requirements of the case; and it more over, contained features on, which he looked with alarm. It might, in fact, have come out of one of the pigeon holes of the Abbe Sieze, who produced constitutions on paper fas ter than they could take them down. Inthe first place there i was the mode n which it dealt with the borough freeholders. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) said that a man who had only one vote would not be disfranchised—he would merely be transposed from the county to the town, which he said would be no hardship. Nay, the noble lord argued that it would be a positive advantage to him, for his 'vote being a larger aliquot of a borough than a county constituency, would have a larger value in the town than it had formerly had in the county. He hoped the noble lord did not mean that the voter would get a larger market price for it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The noble lord contended that it would make no difference whether a man voted in the town or in the county, but he (Mr. S. Herbert) must confess that his own experience had led him to a directlydifferent conclusion. An observation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson), viz., that while the 40s. freeholders were the most independent of voters in the counties they would be the most dependent in towns, had excited a laugh ; but the reason of what the hon. gentleman had stated was plain. The employer of a 40s. freeholder had generally a vote in the borough and not in the county. His vanity, or what was called his amour propre, was involved in carrying his own man, and he would naturally expect his servants to vote with him. But he did not care about the county elections, and therefore he would s ay to his men, "Oh as to the county y ou ma y d o as y ou like." And they did do as they liked. (Hear.) Besides, there was something in the., county franchise which seemed to elevate the poorest voter, and hence they clung to it with the greatest tenacity. They would say, " The Duke of De vonshire or the D u k e o f B e df or d i s a landowner,and so am I." It had been argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great abilitythat if representation were given according to numbers London would equal Scotland, and a shudder ran through the house at the statement. (A laugh.) This was not because the house objected to the metropolitan members, many of whom were - highly cultivated gentle men, but because they objected to the numerical principle. The metropolitan members could not be accused of always voting on the same side ; for if ever they were unanimous it was upon some question of rating. (Laughter.) There were 16 boroughs in the kingdom having each a population of above 100,000, and they were all represented. There were 17 boroughs of between 50,000 and 100,000, and they were all represented; and there were 51 boroughs between 16,000 and 50,000, and every borough of that size was re presented. Those boroughs represented themselves alone, and nothing else. Then came 46 boroughs between 8,000 and 16,000 ; and 29 of the same size were unrepresented. There were 55 boroughs of between 2,000 and 8,000; and there were 232 boroughs of the same size which had no member. These smaller boroughs stood upon a distinc tion, which they undisputably enjoyed, of sending to Par liament men of cultivated minds, men not connected with trades, but with the professions, and who trained them selves to habits of business, and to leading a great popular assembly. These were the men to whom all looked when oppositions wanted leaders • and these were the men whom a summary disfranchisement of small boroughs would with draw at once from the service of the country. These small boroughs were of enormous use in that house. (Hear.) Elections, polls, and so on were only means to an end. The first object was to get the best men in that house ' • the next was to satisfy the people by g i v i ng th em th e franchise. They might do both things, and the complaint against this bill was that it did but one. The new principle of uniformity was recommended only by its symmetry. But did anyone imagine that the borough franchise could be retained more than a few years at £lO. (Hear, hear.) It was said by Sir James Macintosh that a variety of suffrage was the first principle of the constitution. He should always look with horror on a system which should lead to a division of classes in that house, and put Birmingham on one side and Shrop shire and other counties on the other. (Hear, hear.) The moment the country gentlemen were pitted against the de magogues, from that moment the constitution was over thrown. (Hear, hear.) Another point of great importance in the dissuasion was this. It was said the motion of Lord J. Russell was brought forward with party objects. He had no party motive, but wished to get to some substantive Fint—something like that sketched out by Mr. Henley. lew., hear.) The nearer he could ge t t o th a t th e better. The Government seemed to be enamoured of this new prin ciple of uniformity; but he preferred to stand on the old paths. The hon. member for Stroud recommended that they should discuss the bill in committee. He (Mr. Her bert) preferred to vote for the amendment rather than throw out the bill on the second reading. He thought the bill a bad one ; he wished to destroy it, and get a better and if possible induce the Government to bring in a better. (Hear, hear.) In answer to the recommendation that the bill should be dealt with in committee, he would observe, that the Cabinet itself was thought too numerous to frame a Reform Bill, and a committee was appointed for the pur pose. (Hear, hear.) He wanted the bill completely altered, he wanted to gut it—to take the inside out—(laughter)-- and if they wanted to put a house through that process the original artist was sent for. He would not subject the Go vernment to such an indignity as having the bill altered in committee, but would ask them to' withdraw their bill and bring in another constructed on simpler principles and more comprehensive in its details. (Hear, hear.) He la mented that this question had been introduced by a con servative Government; but having done so they ought to carry the measure through. The discrepancies of opinion on the opposition benches showed that they had no party object. If the Government would introduce such a bill as he had indicated it should receive his warmest support. Though the resolution might in practice destroy the bill, it would not prevent the Government from pursuing this course. Let them look upon the resolution as an indication of what the house objected to, and what it wanted. The great majority thought it more important than a change of Ministry that this great question should be settled. (Cheers.) He thought little of changes of Ministry, but even were such the result, they ought to put up with the inconve nience for the sake of the object aimed at. A hundred years hence nobody would ask who was Prime Minister in 1859, but what were the principles of the constitution underwhich we lived ; and these he hoped would be handed down to our posterity. (Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should support the resolution. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—If I were to say of the amendment of the noble lord the member for the City of London that it tends to confuse and embarrass the house as to the issue upon which it is to decide, I should perhaps only be saying that that amendment accomplishes the ob ject for which it was designed—(hear, hear)—but that it has this effect a more signal proof could not be given than the speech of the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down. (Hear.) If the question which you, sir, have put from the chair means anything, it means this—that the House of Commons thinks it more expedient to pass by and supersede the question of the second reading of this bill in order to affirm an abstract resolution upon two isolated pro visions of the measure. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman is going to vote for the amendment, but what has been his argu ment ? We have heard from him a very interesting treatise —everything which falls from the right hon. gentleman is interesting —upon the precise manner in which you ought to reply to an invitation to a ballot dinner, upon the still stronger terms in which you ought to refuse to hear High Mass, upon the principles of party government, upon the history of the bill of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. L. King), upon the principle of uniformity which he says is contained in this bill, and upon the advantages which he thinks are to be derived from the existence of small boroughs; but not until the close of the speech of the right hon. gentleman did we hear one single argument why all this might not have been said, and said just as well, upon the second reading of the bill, or why the ordinary forms of the house should in this case be departed from. (Hear, hear.) And then, when we come at last to know why the right hon. gentleman was about to vote for the amendment what was his reason? He wishes to reject the bill, and he wishes to inform the country at large of the grounds upon which he rejects it. The right honourable gentleman,who throughout his speech deprecated the departure from estab lished principles, is about to do that for which no single precedent. can be found in our Parliamentary history— viz., to vote in such a way as not only to reject the bill, but to show by the motion made the reasons for rejecting it. (Hear, hear.) But that is not the strangest part, be cause the chief objection of the right hon. gentleman is to the principle of uniformity. He therefore wishes to inform the country that it is upon that principle that the bill is re jected. But does the amendment of the noble lord contain one word about the principle of uniformity ? Certainly not. (Cheers.) Therefore. the right hon. gentleman comes to the conclusion that, in order to inform the'country of the principle upon which he opposes this bill, he will vote for an amendment that is entirely silent with regard to that principle. (Hear.) I desire, if the house will allow me, to consider the propositions contained in the amendment of the noble lord, passing by for the present the motives which may or may not have led to its introduction. That amend ment naturally divides itself into two parts—that which re lates to the question of the freehold, and that which refers to the lowering of the franchise in boroughs. As to the first s the amendment of the noble lord denies that it is just or politic to deal with it as proposed in this bill. .We may consider the question of justice first, because if it be unjust I will admit that it certainly cannot be politic. I disembar rass the matter for the present of what may be called vested rights, or the feelings of existing freeholders; and in the first place I ask the house this question—where is it natural and just that a vote for a freehold situated in a borough should be given ? What is the reason that you have boroughs re turning members separrate from counties ? Why is it that a borough has an interest to be represented separate from that of the county. (Hear, hear.) Of what does the interest of the borough consist ? It consists, first, of the personal interests of the inhabitants, and, secondly, of thein terest of property in the borough. And if it consist in part of the interest of property in the borough, I want to know why freehold property is abstractedly to be dealt with on a principle different from that applied to any other propeoty in the borough. Suppose I possess a freehold in the town of Liverpool and live in London. So far as that property is concbrned are my sympathies and interests involved in the welfare of Liverpool or in the welfare of the county of Lancaster at large ? (Hear, hear.) In every question of imperial legislation which may affect Liverpool that free hold must be more or less interested. It is in questions which affect Liverpool, and which the members for Liver pool will have to consider as affecting their town, that the freeholders of Liverpool are interested. This may be fami liarly illustrated by what occurred in this house not many years ago, A measure was introduced affecting the local dues of Liverpool. I need not argue the merits of the ques tion, but if the bill had been carried its effect would have been seriously to add to the burdens on propertyin Liverpool inferseetehaol in freeholds ta t question the withd rawa l o f t h e local d ues. Wh at was the other town that w as mos t i n t ereste d i n t h at quest i on ? I t was the town of Man c h es t er. Th e property i n b oth these towns, thet interested bath these w , a s w e r d e e b m a t o e d r e in or this house. Yet th e same county members represented the two boroughs, an d i t was the members for the boroughs by whom, and necessarily by whom, the whole contest jet q t u h e :t b io: rou u g p h on sh th oul e d sam vote e subject—What with regard to this bill was conducted. (Hear, hear.) I as were proposed that either a freeholder this owro k onhiccu hp ei es f rai ulh thrs er id from for the borough in respect of his freehold or occup a ti on out side? (H e ar, hear.) We sh ou ld all recoil the propo sition as one which was unjust and unnatural; but I want to know what difference there is between these two cases. Is it more unnatural and more uujuattliat you *Aid allow THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 23, 1859, the holder of property outside a boroughto vote for its mem ber, than that you should reverse the process, and permit the holder of property inside to vote for a member outside the borough ? I go a step further, and ask how, in the case of counties, do you deal with the owner of a freehold who is at the same time the occupier of a £5O house, and may, likewise, have other franchises, such ascopyholds, within the county ? You tell him that he has only one vote for the county. (Hear, hear.) But how do you deal with the owner of property inside a borough who has got a free hold and a £lO house, and may have other qualifica tions ? You tell him, " You may vote first for the borough in respect of your occupation, and then for the county in respect of your freehold." We are still upon the question of justice, and I ask, supposing you were for the first time considering this question, would any one stand up and say that this is fair and equitable ? (Cheers.) But what did you do in the Reform Bill ? The noble lord is in the habit of referring to the bill of 1832 as one founded in this respect upon every principle of justice, but what did that measure do with regard to freeholds in boroughs which were above £lO ? Up to 1832 every one of those free holds gave a vote for the county ; but by that bill you said that a freehold above £lO in value inside a borough, which was occupied by its owner, should lose its county vote, and merge into the borough. (Cheers.) Therefore, after all, your principle of borough freeholders voting for counties only comes to this : those of between 40s. and £lO value are to votes for the counties, but if they are above £lO in value they lose the vote for the county even although the owner is not registered for the borough. (Hear, hear.) We are still upon the question of justice only, and I ask if that question were now brought be fore the house for the first time would any one affirm that it was just to make this distinction between the two classes of freeholds ? (Hear, hear.) But I want to know how it was that in the bill of 1832 the provision with regard to the 40s. freeholders in boroughs voting for coun ties came to be preserved. Any one who will take the trouble to look back to the debates of that time will find that this, occurred. It was uniformly protested against by Sir R. Peel. (Hear.) It was frequently protested against by many eminent members on the Liberal side of the House, among others by Mr. Cutler Ferguson. Lord Althorp admitted that it was a very difficult question, on both sides of which a great deal might be said, and he defendad the provision only on the ground that the Government desired to have for counties a representation of nothing but property, and for boroughs a representation of nothing but occupation. This defence, of course, fell to the ground the moment the Chandos clause was introduced, and it is further weakened now that every one admits that you must go beyond that clause, and admit in counties a, still lower qualification from occupancy. (Hear, hear.) So much, therefore, with regard to the justice of the case; now let us come to its policy. The noble lord and the right hon. gentleman who has just sat down have both given us their reasons in point of policy. The noble lord's reason is this—he says that it is very con venient that these freehold voters should mix with the county voters, because they contain a very liberal element which you are about to take out of the counties. That might very well have been said in the way of accusa tion against the Government if such had been the result or the object of our bill, but the very reverse is the case. I pass by the fact that the rights of existing freeholders are preserved, at least of such as desire to preserve them ; but, I ask the house, is not the effect of our bill confessedly to put, into the counties, for the first time, 200,000 voters with respect to whom the noble lord himself said in 1857 that they comprised a body of men highly liberal, and whose insertion in counties would be productive of the greatest benefit ? (Hear, hear.) What is the argument of the right hon. member for South Wilts upon the point of policy ? He uses a most singular argument, for he says the freeholders are a remarkably independent class of men, and one proof of their independence is that where thby have double votes their employers make a bargain with them by which, in return for their borough franchises, they are allowed to do what they like with their county votes. (Hear, hear.) The right honourable gentleman also says —and here he speaks from experience on the subject—that they have the great es t pl easure i n exercising their fran chises in counties. I can understand, if I were a freeholder in South Wilts, that I should have great satisfaction in voting for the right hon. gentleman ; but I want to know if the intrusion of borough freeholders into counties be unjust in itself, how the personal desire of their owner can 'be a reason, when you are readjusting your franchises as a whole for abstaining from doing what is right and proper. (Hear.) Nor, I contend, is there anything impolitic or harsh in the way in which we deal with existing interests. It is a prin ciple well recognised in this house that when you intro duce a measure which will have the ultimate effect of alter ing franchises you take care, whenever you can do it safely and consistently with your scheme, to preserve the rights of existing holders. Are there no precedents for that proceeding ? The noble lord well knows there are, for that is exactly what was done in 1832 in the case of whht were called reserved franchises, and a precisely similar course was adopted in connexion with the Irish bill of the same date. We, in like manner, propose to pre serve to all who desire to continue to vote in counties a right which the right honourable member for South Wilts says they value so highly, as long as they enjoy the property to which the qualification is attached ; but the noble lord asserts that our proposal falls short of the exigencies of the case, because there are persons who have possessed their freeholds from the time of William the Conqueror, and who desire to continue them in their fami lies, and yet we intend to deprive their children of them. I certainly was surprised to hear that argument from the noble lord, for at the time of the first Reform Bill he stoutly denied that there was anything in the franchise in the slightest decree in the nature of property, and in one of his most eelphrated speeches the same position was maintained by Lord• Macaulay. "I deny," said Lord Macaulay, "that the elective franchise is of the nature of property. I believe on this point I have with me all reason, all prece dent, and all authority. This at moons certain, that it thu proposed disfranchisement is founded upon robbery, the re presentative system which now exists is founded upon rob bery." I take that as a sample of the arguments used during the whole of the Reform debates by the noble lord and his friends with respect to there beingright of property in the franchise; and therefore I say when we preserve to existing holders the right to their votes in counties we do all that precedent, or authority, or principle requires, and we fully satisfy the exigencies of the case. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord, however, objects to what he calls the prin ciples a disfranchisement, and asks the house to affirm his amendment upon that ground ; but, let me ask, what has the noble lord himself done in this matter? What did he propose in 1854 ? He proposed by one stroke of the pen to disfranchise some 45,000 freemen in towns and boroughs, persons of whom it has been said by a eminent member on the other side of the house that they comprise some of the most meritorious, most hardworking, and most deserving and independent electors in the coun t r y. (Hear, hear.) What did the noble lord propose to do in the same bill-with the voters in the boroughs which he intended to disfranchise ? They amounted to between 20,000 and 30,000 persons, and wherever they possessed votes such as we are now dealing with they were deprived of them by the bill of the noble lord. The noble lord made no apology; he preserved no rights—neither the rights of the freemen, which had been respected in 1832, nor the rights of the double voters ; and yet he now calls upon the house, merely because he says the freeholders will be deprived of their double votes, to affirm his amendment to the second reading of our bill. (Hear.) But I trust the house will remember that, although in following the argument of the noble lord I have used the term "disfranchisement," there is a marked difference between the cases I have mentioned and that which arises under the presentbill. In the cases I have mentioned the votes were put an end to, and were not to berevived ; whereas in the present instance the votes are not extinguished, although I admit they are transferred from counties to boroughs, and the question whether they can be used will depend upon other considerations, just as the question whether you can exer cise your right in respect of a freehold in a county depends upon whether you have another vote for that county. (Hear, hear.) Let me here say a word upon another point, closely connected with what I have already stated—l mean the question of the residence of freeholders in boroughs as a condition precedent to their votes. The right hon. mem ber for Halifax said last night that if we introduced the system of non-resident freeholders voting in boroughs, and also the system of polling-papers, the result would be that the resident electors would be swamped by votes sent down by non-residents. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Does not the right hon. gentleman see that, if I am right in say ing that there is nothing unjust in making these freeholders vote for boroughs, the rest of his ar gumen t i s on l y an argu ment against poll ing-papers ? Now, no person ever said that polling-papers were an essential part of our bill, or that they did not form one of those subjects which the house might fairly and properly consider in committee. (Hear.) Every one admits that they are convenient, many see difficulties in the way of working them out, and the question, upon the whole, is eminently suited for conside- ration at a subsequent stage. (Hear, hear.) But, ap ar t from polling-papers, let us see whether is any proba bility of freehold votes for boroughs being turned to an im proper or illegitimate use. Is there at present any_ consi derable manufacturing of votes in this country ? When I say " manufacturing of votes," I take the term used by the right hon. member for Halifax; but what I mean to ask is, is there to any considerable extent a planting down of voters in the hope that they will exercise their franchise in a par ticular way ? Everybody admits that up to the present time that has not been done to any extent worth mention ing. There is one way, and one only, in which the manu facture of votes used to be carried on. It consisted in taking extensive premises in some borough, and granting rent charges upon them in such a way as to get a number of votes out of one tenement. The present bill provides against that case, and if further checks can be suggested they ought to be proposed in committee. (Hear.) I have said so much upon the first part of the amendment because the right hon. member for South Wilts, with some unfairness, said that a right hon. gentleman who had occupied the attention of the house for a considerable time had not gone into it; but, having answered the arguments advanced on the other side to the best of my ability, I must close with the remark that every one of the points which I havebeen considering ought to be discussed in committee upon the upon the bill, and not upon the motion for the second reading. (Hear.) I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Devonport say that my noble friend the Secretary for India had informed the house that they must take the bill as it stands, and that no amendment could be accepted by the Government. My noble friend said and meant nothing of the sort. What he said was that if you pass the second reading and put the bill into committee the bill would then share the fate of every other bill that went into committee ; and if amend ments should be proposed it would be for the Government to consider whether they would accede to them or modify them. (Hear.) But it is not possible for the Government , until those amendments are proposed, to state what course they will pursue with respect to any one patticular amend ment. (Hear.) What my noble friend also said—and what I repeat—is, that this Government will not, and Ido not think that any Government which values it honour would, consent to take on the motion for the second reading of a bill, and not on going into committee, an instruction as a pledge of the terms on which the second readin? is to be passed. (Cheers.) I say that the course of raising every question that can be legitimately raised in committee is open with respect to this bill, and to ask the Govern-. went to give pledges to the house before approaching the second reading is a step which has never been taken with respect to any Government in the history of Par liament, and I hold any Government tolerating such a proceeding unworthy for one minute to sit on these benches. (Loud cheers.) Now I come to the second part to of t l h o e w a e m r n e n g amendment r a o n f c t h h i s e e n i o n b I e b 0 1 o r r o d u — g h t s h , e p ß a rt e f o w r e h i a c p h proa relates ch . ing that subject I must observe that the amendment of the noble lord clearly admits that the noble lord is perfectly satisfied with the extension of the suffrage outside the bo rough boundaries, and that has an important consequence. We all know perfectly well the nature of large and popu lous tons. There is a magic Parliaziontairy • and outside of that there is a considerable amount of building. There is, wherever it can be done outside the boundary, a desire to raise manufactories and to build houses of a some.. what better kind, in which clerks and skilled workmen are found to live. Now, the noble lord's amendment admits that what we . propose with respect to occupations outside the boundary is a fair and proper franchise ; but if there be introduced withinside that magic boundary—it may be on one side of a street—the franchise proposed by the noble lord, be it £4, £5, £6, or any other sum, I want to know how the noble lord is to sa ti s fy th e man living on the other side of the boundary, to whom you give, and the noble lcrd admits rightly, only a £lO franchise ? (Hear, hear.) All the eloquence of the noble lord will not persuade the man living on the wrong side of the street that he is dealt fairly with in the distribution of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman who s p o k e l as t sa id th a t for 400 years this constitution had continued to take its present course, and the innovation now proposed had never been practised before. When the right hon. gentleman talks of the history of the country for 400 years, I would ask him how long back does he date the right of voting in counties in respect of oceupatson ; for it is in vain to tell us about freehold rights of voting prevailing from Henry 'VI. down to the present day, when at the time of the Reform Bill you swept away the freehold right as the sole test of county voting and added to it the right of voting in respect to occupation. (Hear, hear.) I could understand the amendment if at the time of discussing this question there were freehold voters and nothing but freehold voters in the counties ; but the question we hive to consider is, whether, as there is an occupation franchise for the counties, there is any reason why there should be a different value for the oc cupation franchise on one and on the other side of a bound ary line. The right hon. gentleman has just given us the history of the bill of the hon. member for East Surrey. Is there any doubt that for some eight or nine years you have had an agitation with the object of lowering the county oc cupation franchise to £lO ? The principle of the first bill of the hon. member for East Surrey was founded on the desire to assimilate the franchise in counties to the fran chise in towns. In a division on this bill, whether taken by surprise or not, the hon. member succeeded, and in another year he renewed his efforts, when the noble lord the member for Tiverton was in office, and on that occasion he failed. The right hon. baronet the member for Halifax had told a most singular stoiy. He said that he voted against that bill and communicated with his constituents, who were surprised at what he had done, b u t h e ex pl a i ne d the case, and showed them what would be the effect of the £lO county franchise, and they were perfectly satisfied. Ido not doubt the powers of persuasion of the right hon. baro net, but still I doubt whether he satisfied his constituents, because next war, when he had left office and sat on the Opposition side of the house, the bill of the hon. member for East Surrey was renewed, the title was altered but the con tents were the same, and the right hon. baronet voted for it. (Cheers.) I was amazed to hear the flimsy pretence that there were blanks in the bill; for 'these blanks were filled up with " £10" in italics, and there was nothing in the bill, good, bad, or indifferent, .but this—that a man might vote for the county is respect of a £lO occupation. (Cheers.) But it may be said that the bill might have been amended in committee. Does the right hon. baronet adopt that defence ? Because if he does I think it is fatal to his consistency in voting as he is going to vote on the present occasion. There was nothing in the bill then before the house, but that one point, to which he had objected ; and yet it is said that bill might be altered in committee. But the bill now before the house is as capable of amendment in committee. The right hon. baronet says he approves part of it, and yet he will not vote for the second reading, but will support the resolution of the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I will not stop with the right hon. member for Halifax, but I will also claim the vote of the noble lord the member for Tiverton, who, I find, said, " Gentlemen may say, and with truth, that although the bill is a different one, and though it does not propose an assimilation of the borough and county franchise, yet the manner in which the blanks are filled up will attain that object. No doubt that is the state of the case, but these who, like myself, adhere to the opinion that it is undesirable and objectionable to assimilate the borough and the county franchise" may do what?—" may vote for the second reading"—(hear, and laughter)—" with the in tention of proposing alterations in the franchise that is intended to be established for county voters." Well, that could be done with this bill. (Hear, hear.) The nobs lord went en, " And therefore any one who contemplated a reduction in the rate of the county franchise may well and consistently vote for the second reading, reserving to him self full liberty of proposing in committee the particular amount of qualification he may think is best. ' (Hear, hear.) The question could not be raised in a better form, because the noble lord, like the right hon. baronet, objected to the whole of the bill, but they voted for the second read ing, intending to turn it into a different bill in committee. The right hon. gentleman no doubt satisfied themselves that was the proper course, but if there is such a thing as consistency I claim their votes for the second reading of this bill. (Cheers.) That was the course taken with re gard to the agitation for the reduction of the £5O county franchise to a level of £lO. It succeeded because it was' carried in this house. Not only was it carried in this house, but the bill of the noble lord (John Russell) in 1854 proposed to reduce the county franchise to £lO. Well, now it is said, "You may reduce the count franchise, but you must not have the same franchise in boroughs as in counties." What, then, is the consequence ? We have seen one agitation bringing the county franchise down to £lO. Apply the principle of not having a uniform franchise in boroughs and counties, and you must lower the borough franchise below the county franchise. (Hear, hear.) Shall I say what will happen next ? The next thing will be a repetition of that process. (Hear, hear.) When the borough franchise is at £5, and, the county at £lO, you will have an agitation to. bring down the £lO to £5. It may not succeed in one year, nor in two, but after a time, when right hon. gentlemen have first voted against it and then for it, that proposition will be carried. But then will step in the objection against uniformity, and you will have to lower the £5 borough franchise. (Cheers and counter cheers.) And thus we shall go on, after the fashion of what is called a Dutch auction, auctioning the counties against the boroughs, the boroughs against the counties, always adhering to this cardinal principle, and to that only, that the franchise in boroughs must be lower than that in counties. (Hear, hear.) Where that will end can imagine, but I am surprised that such a system should find favour with some hon. members, wno sewm w apin v it. The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has referred us to Sir J. Mackintosh, who looked to a variety of rights of suffrage as one of the safeguards of the English constitution. I accede to every word of the opinion of Sir J. Mackintosh upon the subject. I also desire to see a variety of rights of suffrage, but that question is a wholly different question to whether the same suffrage in counties shall confer the right of voting as it does in boroughs. (Hear, hear.) If you want to see a variety of rights of suf frage, take the bill of the Government, which I find con tains no less than 11 varieties of suffrage. Surely that would satisfy even Sir J. Mackintosh. But did Sir J. Mackintosh say one word in the extract which has been read to us of there being any impropriety, any offence to the constitution, in providing that the same franchise in regard to occupancy should confer the right of voting in counties as it did in boroughs ? Mr. S. HERBERT—Different franchises in different places. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—I accept that, and 'I say that will meet the franchises here laid down, because they are franchises which from their nature must be in dif ferent places. Some spring from freeholds, some from lease holds, some from copyholds, some from occupancy; some represent personal property, some educational tests. That is what Sir J. Mackintosh points out, because, of course, he did not mean mere difference of locality. He meant diffe rent franchises which by their nature would introduce dif ferent classes of the country to the right of voting, and that is what this bill provides. (Hear.) The right` hon. baronet and the right hon. gentleman who last spoke say that this is a system which must lead to electoral districts. I will tell the house my opinion upon that subject. I need not say that I desire as little as any man to see that system adopted here. I believe electoral districts are utterly at variance with and would be destructive of the system of representation in this country; but I alio believe they are utterly repugnant to the tastes and wishes of any consider able body in this country. (Hear.) In my opinion that which pres.rves us, and long will I trust preserve us, from electoral districts, is that they are repugnant to the wishes of the country, and not because of any fancy difference be tween a £2O and £lO occupancy franchise ; and if the right hon. gentleman could convince me that the only protection against electoral districts was the maintenance in ooroughs of an £B, or £6, or £5 franchise, and £2O or £25 franchise in boroughs, then I say that will not save us from electoral districts for a single year. If we are to have any protection against electoral districts, let us have one with a principle upon which we can argue, and not a mere difference of a few pounds. (Hear.) Passing from that subject, I wish the house to allow me to consider the question of lowering further the borough franchise. I will put to the house this point, although it does not cover the whole argument. A £lO franchise, or any particular number of pounds, appears at first sight an unbending and unvarying fran chise ; but is it so in point of fact F The noble lord has told us that since 1532 the working classes of this coun try have increased in intelligence, in education, in every thing which we all desire to see, in conduct and manners. I entirely agree with that, but have not the working classes altered their condition otherwise ? No one who is not blind to what has been going on, even within the last 15 years, can have failed to see that the working classes of this cowl. try have been not only growing in intelligence and educa tion, but they have also been increasing in material pros perity. Wages have increased, employment is more regu lar, food is cheaper, taxes are lighter, and all these circum stances together have brought about this state of things,— that houses conferring a £lO franchise are n o w occu pi e d by a class of men to whom they were unattainable at the pass ing of the Reform Bill. Although Ido not desire to carry the argument to any unreasonable length, yet I say that the lapse of 27 years, to which the noble has referred, if accompanied by a progress of prosperity in the country, must naturally bring the franchise within the reach of the greater number, just as the recession of the country in pros perity would diminish the number entitled to the franchise. Now, it has been often asked of the Government " Why can you not trust the working classes, who you see and ad mit are advancing in intelligence and education ?" My answer, which I give unhesitatingly, is this,—l trust the working classes fully, I trust their loyalty and patriotism, and I venture to think I trust them even more than the noble lord shows that he trusts them, for it is some what singular that with all the boasted trust of the work ing classes I find that all who propose a diminution in the borough franchise come to some limit at which they say they are desirous of stopping, at least for the present. Now, I make no such limit. Ido not trust a man in a £5 house and withhold my confidence from a man in a £4 house. I say I trust the working men of this country. I trust their loyalty and patriotism ; but is it a reason, be cause I trust their loyalty and patriotism, that therefore I must give them all votes ? (A cry of "Oh 1") The hon. member signifies dissent. I have seen some publica tions, in which, among many other proposals, was one that women should be admitted to the franchise. Beyond doubt, thoroughly advanced Radicals and philosophers say there is no reason why a woman should not be admitted to a share in the representation of the people. Now, I have no wish to see the franchise conferred on women, but if we are to lay it down as a rule that wherever you can trust loyalty and patriotism there you are to give the franchise, I do not see what arguments you can raise against the admis sion of women within the electoral pale. (Hear, hear.) I say, therefore, that you may allow to the working classes the possession of loyalty and patriotism, and yet at the same time may fairly say. that the franchise ought not to be ex tended to them indiscriminately. (Hear, hear.) I acknow ledgelio principle but this—namely, that we are bound to make our representative system one which will to the greatest degree preserve an equal, even, impartial balance between all classes in this country. (Hear, hear.) lam perfectly willing to admit the working classes to their fair share in the representation, though not to more than their share • but if you lower th e f ranc hi se considerably below £lo—and I say "consider a bl y " b ecause, if there is to be merely an in considerate diminution, it is not what we are talking about —(hear, hear)—you introduce a body of men who by their very numbers are able to outweigh, to outvote, and practi cally to disfranchise eve other class of voters in the king dom, (Cheers.) N ow , I- decline decline to do this, but not because they are the working classes. There is no class in the coun try to whom I would allow this undue share of power. I would not extend it to employers any more than the em ployed, to dwellers in counties any more than to dwellers in boroughs. I would not give it to merchants, tradesmen, or any other class, and I say, therefore, when once it is as certained that the proposed alteration in our representative system would enable one class by force of numbers to out weigh the class above it, I feel bound, without further con sideration, to reject any such proposition. These are my reasons for contending that the principle of the bill which will make the occupation franchise the same in the boroughs and the counties a sound one, and these are my reasons for decling to effect any considerable alteration in the borough franchise. But now allow rae to ask this question —Although we do not propose any alteration in the amount of the borough franchise, do we not in point of fact admit a very large number of the working classes to the enjoyment of the franchise ? I desire to put this fairly before the house i and the country, because It s much too serious a question to allow of any misunderslauding with regard to it. In the first place, in the counties we admit not less than 200,000 electors. I do not say that these wit V all belong to the work ing classes ; but you will remember the clouds of small houses on the outskirts of all the Parliamentary boroughs of this kingdom, you will remember the number of voters who will come from unrepresented towns, and you will then see that a large proportion of these 200,000 electors will be more or less derived from the working classes. (Hear.) But we do not stop there. By this bill we open the borough franchise as it has never been opened before, and in a way which I think will prove of the greatest importance to the welfare of the working classes and to the extension of our representative system. Observations have been made on what is called the savings' bank clause, and upon the clause relating to the 40s. freeholders. Well, we provide two means by which any member of the working classes who is able to realise and save a small sum of money may procure the franchise either if he makes a permanent investment in a small freehold or if he lodges his money in a savings-bank. We have no precise statistics as to the number who would derive a vote under the savings-bank franchise, and I con fess I was lately much surprised to read the report of a meeting at which the right hon. bart. (Sir B. Hall), when commenting upon the Reform Bill before his constituents, was represented as saying "that the bill was one of the greatest political frauds ever attempted to be perpetrated." (" Hear,:lear," and a laugh.) Now, I know it is usual, especially when you are speaking to very popular consti tuencies, to use very broad and emphatic language in attack ing an opponent; but I was anxious to know what was the ground far this very serious accusation, made by a gentle man of such gravity as the right hon. baronet; so I read the rest of his speech, and the only point in the bill to which he was reported as objecting was this savings-bank clause. The right hon. baronet said he had sent to Newport, he had had a calculation mde, and it was found that 60 people in Newport had £6O in the savings-bank, but that with one single exception all of them were either women or else had the franchise already, the result being that only one person in the place would be enfranchised under this bill. (A laugh.) Now, while reading these remarks I could not help thinking it would have been better if the right hon. baronet had taken the case of the borough which he represents, and in which he was speaking, and had endeavoured to find out the num ber of depositors there. (Hear, hear.) I dare say, though, he had some good reason for taking the borough of Newport. (Hear, and laughter.) But I wanted to discover what there was about this measure, although perhaps, it may not en ' franchise as many as was expected, which should render it " one of the greatest political frauds ever attempted to be ' perpetrated," because the house will allow that this is rather strong language. (Hear.) I looked back, therefore, to see what had been proposed before on this subject, and I found that the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) in 1854 proposed a savings bank qualification. The person entitled to the franchise was to have £5O in the bank, but he was to keep it there for two years, and was to reside one year more in the place where it was kept, so that after three years he would have the privilege of voting. (Hear and a laugh.) Well, I thought if ours was a great political fraud, the scheme of the noble lord would demand still harder language. (Hear.) But on looking back I found that the right hon. baronet took part in the debate. (Hear, hear.) He was net a member of the Government at the time, but joined it a very few months afterwards ; and he thanked the noble lord very much for introducing the measure, his only objection to it being that it did not give half-a-dozen additional members to Marylebone. (Laughter.) Not one word did he say then about a great political fraud. ((leers.) lam sorry the right hon. baronet is not here. [Sir B. Hall was sitting on the front bench below the gangwaay.) I beg his pardon. I see he has changed his place. (Cheers and laughter.) He has now taken his seat beside the noble lord the member for the City of London, and I leave them to settle the question of the difference between a £5O or a £6O savings -bank franchise, as creating or not creating a great political fraud. (Cheers.) So much for the objections of the right hon. baronet. But, now let me ask the house to consider this savings-bank qualification. An error has pre vailed with regard to it, which may as well be corrected. It is said that owing to the limit upon the amount of de posits received it will require two years before a man can put £6O in a savings-bank. That is a mistake, because though £3O is the limit for a year, two days over the year willisuffice to enable a man to deposit a second £3O. (Hear, hear.) This, however, is only by the way, and does not touch the essence of the measure. (" Oh I" and cheers.) But, now remember that was said by an hon. member last night. • Speaking as to the operation of this savings-bank clause, he said there were in a particular town 1,200 depo sitors of £6O and upwards, a very great number of whom did not possess the franchise at all. (Hear, hear.) I think that is a tolerably significant fact, and if we had the means of searching we should probably find that a very large number of persons all over the country would be enfran chised by means of this clause. (Hear, hear.) . What, how ever. I take to be the merit of this franchise is, that it en courages the working classes to display providence, fore thought, frugality; and the very means by which they are obtaining the franchise, which it is supposed they desire, is thus in itself a kind of moral training which must reflect upon their conduct and welfare in the future, and must exercise a most wholesome influence over the working classes at large. (Hear.) There is a difference between this franchise and every other we have hitherto had. Tell a man that if he will only take a £lO, £B, or even a £5 house he shall have the franchise, and you may be doing the very worst thing in the world for his interest, for you maybe en oon:-.B•ing him to live in a maramr which his earnings or his means do not justify. (Hear, hear.) But say to a man, "It is your duty to lay by money for yourself in time of sickness, and for your family after your death, and at the same time you thall have this further inducement, for we will give you the right of voting, as though you lived in a £lO house," and you invite him to do that which must be beneficial to himself and his family, and which must tend also greatly to encourage habits of prudence among the working classes at large. (Hear.) I have now gone through the various points contained in the bill of the noble lord, and explained the nature of the propositions which we have laid before the house. But I cannot help thinking that I should altogether fail in the performance of my duty on this occasion if I were now to stop short and not to inquire what the practical object is which the noble lord proposes by means of his amendment to attain. (Hear, hear.) His re-- solution must clearly have been moved with some object, and we ought, as sensible men to consider what that object, is, and to form our opinions accordingly. Now there are two conclusions which were to be drawn from the amend • ment and the speech of the noble lord. The first of those conclusions is, that he is afraid to meet this bill on the second reading. (Cheers.) The second conclusion is, that the noble lord declines to tell us what measure he proposes to substitute for that which he condemns. (Hear, hear.) Let me take the resolution itself and dissect it. To what, let me ask, does it amount ? It condemns two particular features in the bill, and the inference to be drawn from that fact is this, that the noble lord does not object to anything in the bill, with the exception of those two points. (Cries of " N., no 1") Ido not say that that is exactly the case, but I have drawn, I contend, the logical deduction from the noble lord's proposition. (Cheers.) Well, I want to know if this be a fair interpretation of the views of the noble lord and of those who are prepared to support his amendment, because we are entitled, upon a subject of this importance, to know what those who oppose the bill in its main fea tures propose to substitute for it. (Hear, hear.) In the elucidation of that point I thought we might de rive some advantage from the sentiments of the noble lord when a short time ago he was called upon to give expression to them upon this subject. There was not long since a meet ing of the constituents of the noble lord—for his constituents —like any other member's of this house—will meet and ask questions—(a laugh)—and they desired to have the noble opinions upon the subject of reform. It is, no doubt, an ad vantage to have a popular constituency, for you may corre spond with them by letter when it is inconvenient to attend their meetings in person—(Hear, and a laugh)—and we all know that the noble lord is fond of epistolary correspon dence. (Renewed laughter.) At all events, he had recourse to it upon this occasion. An hon. baronet, an old and most respected member of this house (Sir J. Duke), adopted a different course; he went to the meeting, and, having done so, was reported to have addressed it to the following effect. He said, " He had felt it to be his duty to attend there that day instead of writing a letter. Ido not know what that means. (Cheers and laughter.) ' The observation, how ever, was received with cheers, and the hon. baronet con tinued—" He felt it to be his duty to attend there that day in order that he might hear the sentiments of that great assemblage, for the guidance of his conduct in Parliament. He had done all inhis power to promote the extension of the franchise, and he had hoped that Lord J. Russell, or some other person, would have done them the justice of laying upon the table of the house a measure to supplant the one under discussion, in order that the Liberal party might see what they would be called upon to support when the Go vernment scheme had been rejected." (Cheers.) " Such a course would have been straightforward towards the Liberal members of the House of Commons." (Hear.) Now I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal of truth in the observations which the hon. baronet addressed to the meeting, and I for one thought it was an unnatural ex • pectation to indulge in. But, although the constituents of the noble lord had not been afforded the satisfaction of hearing him, yet he would, in accordance with hi s pro mise made in his letter to them, state his views upon this subject distinctly when it came under discussion in this house. (Hear.) But we now have the advantage of having heard the noble lord's speech, and I ask what his views are upon some of the questions which appear to me to be involved in the consideration of this measure ? Let me take, for instance, the question of the ballot, which I contend is involved in the discussion, not because it enters into the bill, but because a large section of the members of this house look upon it as a necessary ingredient in any scheme of Reform. (Hear, hear.) I know what were the opinions held by the noble lord in times past upon this question. I have often experienced great satisfaction in listening to his declarations of hostility to the ballot in this house. I want to know whether he still retains the same views with respect to it to which he formerly gave expres sion. (Cheers.) I wish particularly to have an answer upon this point, for I find that a large number of those hon. members who sit near the noble lord below the gangway have attended public meetings, and have contended that, although they deemed the extension of the franchise in boroughs to be expedient, yet they did not desire to have it unaccompanied by the ballot. (Cheers.) If, therefore, the noble lord continues to maintain the sentiments to which he has so often given expression on ihissuirecT,TshoZcilike to know who are those gentlemen sitting below the gang way on the opposite side of the house who can be reckoned upon as his supporters in any scheme of reform which he may introduce ? (Cheers.) We were informed last night that the hon. member for Walsall (Mr. Forster) told his constituents distinctly that the noble lord a n d the hon. member for Birmingham were, to use a popular phrase, "in the same boat, and perfectly agreed upon every subject." (Cries of "No, no l' and cheers.) These are the hon. gentleman's words :—" If you will wait till next week you will find thit there is a perfect a g reeme nt between Lord John Russell and John Bright." I beg the h on. member for Birmingham's pardon for maki n g mention of hi m i n such familiar terms. (Laughter.) Mr. FORSTER rose to explain that what he had said on the occasion to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded was that it was matter of common notoriety that the noble lord the member for Birmingham —(great laugh ter) —he meant the member for London—and the hon. gen tleman the member for Brrmingb.ara were perfectly agreed as to the course to be taken with mud to the ball wader discussion. He had perhaps vs ed the phrase that they would be found sailing in the saw am boat, the translation of which was, that upon a divisMa they would be found in the same lobby. He had also stated, entirely on his own responsibility, that he believe ti ‘. the hon. member for Bir mingham participated in those f belings of confidence which at the present moment advance( I Liberals were disposed to extend to the noble lord the men iber for the City of London. (Cheers and laughter.) The SOLICITOR-GENERA .L continued—l am obliged to the hon. gentleman for the exp lanation which he has Just given us, because I could hardly - believe that the report of his observations which I quoted was correct. It is now, however, clear that the expressions which are attributed to him by the newspapers have be en inaccurately recorded. (Cheers.) I now beg to repeat the question :—Have the noble lord the member for London and the hon. member for Birmingham so completely agreed as to the course which they are to pursue as that they are to row in the same boat, which interpreted means, it appears, that they are to be in the same lobby when a division is taken on this amend ment ? If the answer should be in the affirmative then I should wish to learn upon what principle their compact is founded ? Does it or does it not include the question of vote by ballot ? (Cheers.) If it does . include that question then I should like to know how hon. gentlemen opposite, who sit above the gangway, can concur with the noble lord in the course which he is takins. ? (Cheers.) If, upon the other hand, it d oes n o t include the ballot, how, let me ask, are those hon. gen tl emen prepare d t o ac t w h o h ave t o ld their constituents that any extensi on of the suffrage un accompanied by the ballot would be a curse rather than a blessing ? (Hear, hear.) Will they vote for the amend ment of the noble lord? (Cheers.) I now come to the sub ject of the redistribution of seats. We are all aware of that which the present bill proposes to d o in that direc tion. It takes 15 seatf from boroughs which possess two. We also know what the bill introduced by the noble lord proposed to do—namely, to take away 50 or 60 seats. We are aware that the measure of the hon. member for Birming ham proposed to affect a much greater number ; I now for • get how many. Now several hon. members opposite, in arguing this question upon the basstings, have stated that the extension of the franchise without a re-distribution of seats would be a farce and a sham. (Ch eers and laughter.) If that be so, and if the noble lord the- member for London and the hon. member for Birmingham are quite agreed as to the course which they are to take o.n the present occa sion, I am anxious to know what part of their compact touches, and how it touches. this questior t of re-distribution ? (Hear, hear.) It is but fair that the noble lord should tell the country what he means to do in reference to this sub ject. I for one do not think the country co to be gulled by being told that hon. gentlemen opposite are the champions of freeholders who have been handed down to us from the days of William the Conqueror. (Cheers.) Tell the peo ple boldly what you would do in this respee,t, if you had power placed in your hands to-morrow. (Wear, hear.) What seats would you take away? How many - electors— no matter where they came from—would you .deprive of their votes? (Cheers.) In order to catch the popular ap plause you pretend that you aro anxious to admit to the franchise some persons who hare it not, but do not conceal the designs that you have upon voters who will be at tacked, and whom, if you have the power, you will deprive of the franchise. (Cheers.) But I ask another question— What does the noble lord mean to do with the borough out rage ? He has not told us. He says it is not the proper course to take in opposition to tell you what he would do if he were in office. But, at all events, I remember what was said by a right hon. colleague of the noble lord—the right hon. baronet the member for Morpeth. Mr. Hume some years ago proposed in this house an abstract resolution something like the amendment proposed by the noble lord. Mr. Hume did not specify the extent to which he would go ; and what said the right honourable baronet the mem ber for Morpeth? He said, " Before you take away the constitution we have, at all events let us know what you are going to give us in its place." Now, I say to the noble lord, at all events let us know what you mean to give us in place of this bill, which you won't allow to be considered even on the second reading. (Hear, hear.) Hut Ido not want merely to know what the noble lord would propose in itt; place. I want to know what probability there is of the concurrence of the country in any proposition that he might make. We have seen meetings upon this subject. I heard an hon. member last night saythat there had been meetings on every hustings in the kingdom. Ido not think that is quite accurate. (A laugh.) I have seen meetings, and I have seen a singular unanimity in them, because there has not been a meeting of which I have seen a report which has not terminated not merely in expressing an opinion on the Government Bill, but in going further, and calling for trien nial Parliaments, for household suffrage, sometimesfor man hood suffrits. b e, sometimes for universal suffrage, always for vote by ballot. (Opposition cheers.) Well, I want to knout which part of this extensive bill of fare the noble lord, in his agreement with the hon. member for Birmingham, has permitted himself to select. (Cheers and laughter.) It is only fair that we should know, because it is not many years since a passage of arms on this subject took place between the noble lord and the lion, member for Birming ham, which ended in anything but an amicable manner. I speak of the motion which was made with regard to the extension of the borough suffrage. What did the noble lord then say of the hon. member for Birmingham, who then sat for Manchester as its member ? The noble lord said this. He said, " What I have to find fault with in the hon. mem ber for Manchester and those who agree with him is, that they are so exceedingly narrow-minded. (Great laughter and cheers.) Set them upon the subjects upon which they are particularly conversant, and I ligten with great admira tion to their extensive knowledge and acute ability; but when we come to discuss la;^gp 'questions such as concern the fortune of our erai•nre, then I see they have intellect and un.derstancling lssund up in so nar row a round—(laughter)—that it is imps issible to get them to understand those great principles on w.hich our ancestors founded the constitution of this counts y, and which we, their successors, humbly admire and endaivour to follow." (Great laughter, and cheers.) That was the view which the noble lord then took of the views of the hon. member for Birmingham upon this subject. We have been told, and it has been repeated to us to-night, that now - the noble lord and the hon. member for Birmingham are quite agreed as to the course to be taken with regard to this bill—quite agreed, I suppose, in every sense—peed not merely as to this attempt to get rid of a bill of this kind by an amend ment, but a g reed as to what the consequences of that amend ment musbe, and as to what the end of that must bs of which this is only the beginning. (Cheers.) Well, I .ask for information. Many hon. members have yet to speak. The hon. member for Birmingham has to speak. I ask for information on the points I have mentioned—vote by ballot, redistribution of seats, and extension of the borough fr an chise. Specifically, I want to know what is the extent of the agreement between the noble lord and the hon. member for Birmingham. I think, as a House of Commons, we are also entitled to ask this que s ti on , wh a t probability is there of support to the noble lord and the hon. member for I Mr raingham from the followers who sit around him on these points ? (Cheers.) The noble lord may depend upon it that these questions will not be asked merely in this house, hut they will also be asked in the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord appeals as a proof of his sincerity in his amend ment to his long known and long-tried attachment to the cause of reform. We all know and admit the noble lord's attachment to this question. But we also know that thl !:re is a form of the tender passion which sometimes develoi pea itself in jealousy of any attention to the object of its affect ion from any other quarter. (Laughter and cheers.) I thi,sik the noble lord exposes himself to some misconstruction .on this point. (Laughter.) -We have heard it said— " Strong were his hopes his rival to remove ; With blandishments to gain the public love; To head the faction while their zeal was hot, • And popularly prosecute the plot." (Laughter.) Whether this is so or not I know not, but •of this lam sure—that the country will ask—the country hal7e asked already—what are the real intentions of the nob le lord, and what are the objects which he proposes to himself in meeting a bill of this kind, notopenly, not broadly, bs it by en ambiguous and most irregular amendment—(loi:id cheers)—which commits nobody and which means nothir i.g that is precise. (Laughter and cheers.) The people of th.is country have differed, and they always will differ, about Reform Bills, about theories of representation, about soth d and domestic legislation of any kind. But there is one sub - ject upon which the people of this country are entirel; y agreed. They do not like anything which bears the leas t appearance of approaching to artifice or—l must use a homely phrase —a dodge. (Loud cheers.) They do not lik e it in business, they do not like it in politics, but least of al LI will they admire it in a man who ; at a time when the bes t interests of his country at home and our most peacefn .1 hopes abroad demand all the patriotism, all the candour, and all the forbearance of a statesman—(vehement cheers) —approaches the consideration of a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly to reject, but coin triving a crafty and catching device to confuse and, if it may be, to dislocate parties, and in that confusion al ad dislocation to secure his own. political aggrandisement ai ad private advantage. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) Mr. M. GIBSON moved.the adjournment of the debat e. Mr. WILSON said, in common with the house, he felt the greatest admiration for the oration they had just heard and therefore did not like to interrupt th e h on. and learned gentleman. What he said with regard to freeholders in boroughs being a fluctuating class, was that as changes were made by sale or otherwise, the new comers would be entitled to. the option of choosing between the county and borough, and therefore the class would be to that extent fluctuating. The debate was then adjourned till Thursday. The house adjourned at twenty-five minutes to one o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Tills and Ointment.-- Dropsy—Swelled Legs—The various kinds of dropsies, whether windy or watery, arise from some obstruction to the free circulation through the blood-vessels, or lymphatics, or depend on the inflamed state of some secreting surface. Hol loway's famous remedies, of which the efficacy cannot be ex aggerated, act directly upon the blood, the absorbents and secretions, with a power that no dropsy. however inveterate, can long resist. They regulate the proper flow of blood to every organ, and purify it likewise. They filter out every thing that is morbid or injurious. They thoroughly regene rate every function ; yet, potent as they are for good, they are powerless for evil. They do not contain mercury or an,y noxious substance. They act safely and certainly. BIRTHS. ALEXANDER.—On the 2d inst., at Montpelier-hill, Dublin, Lady Alexander, of a son. ASTON.—On the 20th inst., at HolbornMount, Hull, York shire, the wife of D. W. Aston, Esq., of a daughter. . BOMFORD.—On the 21st inst., at 6, Gloucester-crescent, Hyde-park, the wife of S. Bomford, Esq., of a son. MACADAM.—On the 22d inst., at 16, Somerset- street, Port man-square, the wife of Lieut.-Colonel Macadam, of a son. MARRIAGES FORTESCUE—EDGAR.-011 the 19th inst., at St. Mark's, Surbiton, Kingston-on-Thames, Thos. Fortescue, Esq., of Suffolk Lawn, Cheltenham, to Louisa Margaret, the secon d daughter of the l a t e M a j or Francis Russell Edgar, 31st Regt. REYNOLDS — HARDWICK.— On the 21st inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, John James Reynolds, Esq., of Hereford, to Elizabeth, youngest daughter of the late Mr. Hardwick, of New Bond-street. DEATHS. CRABBE.—On the 19th inst., at Highfield, Southampton, Colonel Eyre John Crabbe, K.H., late commanding 74th Highlanders, aged 68. DELAFOSiE.—On the 21st inst., at the Rectory, Shiere, the Rev. Daniel Charles Delafosse, M.A., r ector of that parish, aged 75. DASECWOOD.—On the 19th inst., at Lyndhurst, New Forest, Louisa Henrietta, wife of Vice• Admiral Dash_ wood. HOWARD.—On the 21st inst., at Norfolk House, the L a dy Elizabeth Mary Fitzalan Howard, infant daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk. I.4ONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county o Middlesex, Wednesday, March 23, 1859, Gen men seve men mat feeti The play and' 9; c M. I Thu Pit, Boxe Galle Tw Rm. Par amine of int Dei witha Th( F Tr With Capit Comp be off holde Der plicat Chair Depu of Sir Jt Willie Lord Patric Bear'- I John P Lieut , Robei sc Georg 0 Hem' Frani Josep CONS] ENG!: BA: DROK Appli 0 F tc E T II B fr - A assort lisks, in Ita Impo ralogr] Mr. MIN) Inter( GEO. PR RAL Ei duce( been princ homc E` SHE 245. I Doze Imp( blish II Gra3 TR) licio cent Has the' Kin Bent ll 200 I Nish and NO C be i i of t roar DOI Joh ing for( 5 ti wai dos Sze or 1 ane Ind Fu DI all: effi. ent flu( B 1 K 1 of ~r